Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Northern Ireland (Rules of Engagement)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the most important issue of the rules of engagement which govern those who serve us in Northern Ireland. One particular case has received a great deal of publicity, but the wider problem of the uncertainty in the minds of many of our soldiers serving in Northern Ireland has not received equal prominence.
I shall maintain four points today. First, we should never allow charges less than murder to be brought in a case of deliberate killing. Secondly, we should put on hold the present review of the law of murder in the Home Office until the Select Committee on Defence has had the opportunity to consider the wider issue of the rules of engagement, and until the House has had the chance to debate it. Thirdly, we should expedite cases involving members of the security forces who are charged while serving on active duty, so that they do not have two-year waits. Fourthly, I shall make some brief remarks on the Clegg case.
I hope that it is in order for me to draw on an illustration from the other side of the world. In 1947, six miles south of Haifa, a party of British soldiers were escorting a civilian convoy—a mixture of Jewish and Arab civilians—when they were stopped by a gun battle between Jewish and Arab gunmen up ahead. The young officer concerned went forward with a party of his soldiers to clear the path, when a civilian vehicle with armoured plating came racing down the road.
The officer told the soldiers to stop the vehicle. It was pulled aside and suddenly, a few seconds later, it pulled away and drove rapidly off. Faced with that extremely suspicious behaviour in the middle of a dangerous situation, the young officer, my father, who was aged 20, tried to open fire on the vehicle with a Piat anti-tank rocket launcher. Thank God it misfired, because when that vehicle was eventually stopped, it turned out to contain a large number of women and children huddling in the back.
I make that point only because the House must be clear that, in a situation of conflict of any sort, from time to time tragedies can and will occur, which can cause the most terrible bitterness in the wider community. That does not mean, however, that anyone is culpably to blame. Our forces in Ulster have behaved with a degree of restraint that is not only remarkable, but that we have come increasingly to take for granted in a fashion that may be becoming almost unhealthy. They operate within rules of engagement which are probably the strictest that any army anywhere in the world has ever operated under.
I have attempted to obtain the statistics for soldiers charged on active duty in Ulster—so far, without much success. The only statistics that I have been able to find came in an answer to a parliamentary question and relate to murder charges. I am not sure whether they are complete. In particular, they appear to exclude the Ulster Defence Regiment.
The material that is available, however, shows a sinister trend. In the 17 years from 1974 to 1990, only six charges of murder are recorded, involving four incidents, and in every case the soldiers concerned were acquitted; yet in the three and a three quarter years from 1991 to the ceasefire, four incidents took place. Five charges were brought in the same number of incidents in a much shorter period. Of those, one resulted in an acquittal, and two, involving Private Thain and Private Clegg, in convictions. The remaining incident involving two soldiers is still sub judice.
An extraordinary statistical freak may have taken place, or discipline is suddenly breaking down across a cross-section of four different regiments in the Army, which I do not believe, or we must face the possibility that the criminal justice system has changed and hardened its attitude towards offences allegedly committed by soldiers while on duty.
The figures also show that, in almost all those cases, the soldiers concerned, whether or not they were acquitted, waited for between 18 months and two years for a verdict. Those soldiers were in a different situation from members of the public awaiting their trials in custody, because they were there not just because there were charges against them, but because they had volunteered to serve in the British Army and had been sent to Ulster. Their families faced the prospect of their men being in custody for two years.
A much larger number of lesser charges have been brought against our soldiers. Anybody who has spoken to people who have served in Northern Ireland—I know that some hon. Members who wish to speak have served there—will know of the concern caused from time to time by the rules of engagement and the yellow card.
The Clegg incident was first raised with me by soldiers in my local regiment, 2nd Battalion, the Princess of Wales Regiment, when I was privileged to visit them in Ulster last year. Individuals told me again and again that they were deeply concerned that the case left them uncertain about where they stood.
The House will expect me to say something about the Clegg case. As a former Territorial Army officer and someone who was privileged to serve for a while in the Parachute Regiment, I have to say that there are aspects of the case that leave me deeply troubled. I know that I was not there, but it seems extraordinary that a junior rank should be charged with and convicted of perverting the course of justice, when an officer who was present at the time was not even disciplined.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: rose—

Sir Jim Spicer: rose—

Mr. Brazier: I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I press on and allow time for them to speak later.

Sir Jim Spicer: Will my hon. Friend give way on this point?

Mr. Brazier: I will give way.

Sir Jim Spicer: There is another disturbing aspect of the Clegg case. How can it be possible for a soldier who is to be charged with a serious offence to be on duty out on the street for a further six to nine months with that charge hanging over him and with no action being taken by the authorities? That is inexcusable.

Mr. Brazier: That is a good point.
Another aspect that deeply concerned many people is the disgusting montage erected in the barracks afterwards. It must have caused tremendous offence to Karen Reilly's family and to the wider community.
That said, those aspects are of limited relevance to the subject that we are discussing today and, in fact, are of limited relevance to the Clegg case. People may try to manufacture evidence not only because of guilt but also for a very different reason—because they have no confidence in the system of law. When I discussed this issue with people who have served recently in Northern Ireland, the message I heard again and again was that they are not sure where they stand.
If a man is seen throwing a bomb at a patrol and a soldier shoots him before the bomb leaves his hand, he is within the rules of engagement. If he is shot just after the bomb has left his hand, the person firing could be committing a serious criminal offence. If he is shot just before the object leaves his hand and it was not a bomb after all, the person firing the shot may be in serious trouble.
Another point is made time and again. Only three days ago, I had a conversation with an officer who had just come back from Northern Ireland. He had nothing to do with the Parachute Regiment, and was not even an infantry officer. He said that, as a result of cases such as this, soldiers are increasingly uncertain whether they can trust the yellow card.
The House knows most of the facts of the Clegg case. Cars have been used frequently as lethal weapons against our soldiers. They have sometimes been packed with explosives but, more commonly, they were simply used to deliberately run down and kill soldiers. In fact, a soldier in B company of 3 Para, Clegg's company, was killed in that way earlier in the same tour of duty, when a car scooped him up on to its bonnet. The car was driven for several hundred yards, and the soldier was then sadistically crushed to death.
It is against that background that the whole of an eight-man patrol, two groups of four, opened fire. Somehow, the court ruled that they were justified in opening fire, but that the man who fired the second lowest number of shots—only four—was doing his duty on the third shot and, within half a second, became a criminal with his fourth shot.
I shall quote from the late noble Lord Diplock, from a time when it was still possible to have jury trials in Northern Ireland:
the jury … should remind themselves that the postulated balancing of risk against risk, harm against harm, by the reasonable man is not undertaken in the calm, analytical atmosphere of the court-room

after counsel with the benefit of hindsight have expounded at length the reasons for and against the kind and degree of force that was used by the accused: but in the brief second or two which the accused had to decide whether to shoot or not and under all the stresses to which he was exposed.
Private Clegg did not have a second or two between his third and fourth shot: he had about half a second.
Far be it from me to abuse the privileges of the House and suggest that any judge in this country, in Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom, does not understand fully—I am sure that they all do—the letter and detail of our common and statute law. However, I believe firmly that, had this case been heard by a judge from Lord Diplock's generation, someone who remembered the war, we would never have had a verdict which so jarred the feelings of justice of the British people. I believe that that would have been the case whether it had been a murder or a manslaughter verdict.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I realise, probably more than most, the sensitivity of the matter under discussion. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is leaving out an important factor, which is that the evidence was given by a police officer who was with that patrol? The evidence from that officer was clear, and totally substantiated the story that the hon. Gentleman has referred to as the concocting of evidence. I cannot for the life of me see why the sympathies of any police officer in the North of Ireland would be towards harming the soldier. Surely the police officer was giving objective evidence about a serious incident.

Mr. Brazier: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I did mention the manufacture of evidence earlier, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, another soldier was convicted and imprisoned for that. None of that alters the fact that a man was convicted of a serious criminal offence—it makes no difference whether it was manslaughter or murder—in the half-second interval between a third legitimate shot and a fourth shot, at a time when shots were ringing out everywhere and no one had any way of knowing whether they were all coming from one side.
I am pleased about the close interest that the Cabinet and the Government are taking, and I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on the Front Bench. I notice that the Home Office is carrying out a review of the law on murder as a result of the recommendations by the judiciary. The change would allow manslaughter charges.
I mean no offence to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, for whom I have the greatest respect, when I say that it is slightly odd that, of the three Departments concerned—the Ministry of Defence, the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office—the Department selected to lead on this inquiry is the only one of the three with no internal military advisers. Nevertheless, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary assures me that he will be taking advice direct from the Army as well as from his colleagues in the other two Departments, in whom I also have the greatest confidence.
Of all the things that I have seen in Parliament and that sadden me as a Member, perhaps the saddest instances have been those rare occasions when we have seen the House make a terrible and grievous mistake by legislating in a hurry to change a law, often as a result of some


well-publicised incident, in which the Front-Bench spokesmen have agreed on a policy which has been widely supported by the establishment outside but which the people on the ground know to be impractical. I believe that we have the chance to make such a mistake now.
If we were to accept the recommendations of successive judges, starting 15 years ago and most recently endorsed by the House of Lords, that we should allow charges less than murder—perhaps some new concept of military manslaughter—to be brought against soldiers in uniform when a deliberate killing has taken place, we would remove the discipline on the courts in which it has to be murder or nothing.
That would not help any soldier. Private Thain would not have come out a day earlier had he been convicted of manslaughter instead of murder, but, should the hostilities start again—we desperately hope that they will not—we should be opening the way for a string of borderline cases in which civilian judges would in effect be allowed to rule on whether they thought someone had been negligent.
Incidentally, the recommendation was made in a wider civilian context. I believe that also to be profoundly wrong, although there is no time to argue the point now.
Instead, we should be considering ways to bring the rules of engagement into the law. One option, suggested in an early-day motion supported by 118 colleagues, is to embody them directly in the law. If that is thought to be too inflexible and impractical, an alternative would be to allow an absolute defence in law—not a defence that would somehow downgrade a murder charge—that a soldier reasonably believed that he was operating within the rules of engagement laid down on the yellow card on the advice of the Government's Law Officers. I suggest that the best body to examine the matter would be the Select Committee on Defence which could take advice from all levels in the Army, as well as from other interested parties and various local bodies involved.
I have four recommendations. First, and perhaps most important, we must reject the idea of removing from our soldiers the protection of an "all or nothing" situation. It would be shameful if we were to change the law in this respect under legal pressure. Secondly, we should suspend the internal inquiry in the Home Office until the Select Committee on Defence, if it chooses to do so—which I understand is likely—has had the opportunity to investigate the matter and report to the House, and until the House has then debated the options in the wider context of the rules of engagement.
Thirdly, there is one thing that we could do immediately to reassure our armed forces should hostilities tragically recommence. We could at least ensure that soldiers charged with offences while on active service have their cases heard at an early date. The numbers involved are relatively small, but they should not spend two years in custody waiting for their cases to be heard.
Finally, Private Clegg should be released on licence—as Private Thain was—and allowed to rejoin his regiment. The Northern Ireland Office has the necessary power to arrange that. I believe that we owe these things to the service men and women who serve us so loyally in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Joe Hendron: We are having this debate because of what happened on 13 September 1990. Hon. Members will know that, on that date, two young joyriders—Karen Reilly and Martin Peake—were shot dead by a patrol of the 3rd Parachute Regiment, which included Private Clegg. That same regiment had shot dead 13 unarmed people in Derry in 1972.
I wonder whether hon. Members, especially those on Conservative Benches who might have signed an early-day motion, know all the facts of the case. On 13 September 1990, and on every other night in west Belfast in that period, joyriders were out every night of the week, not only on the Upper Glen road but on Monagh road and Lenadoon avenue. Everybody in Belfast, and especially in west Belfast, and members of the security forces and police officers, were well aware of that fact. Joyriders are a plague; they can kill people and be killed themselves, but they do not deserve to be shot dead. They are not shot dead in England, Scotland or Wales.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Hendron: No, I must be brief.
Hon. Members may be aware that, in the 25 years since the troubles began in Northern Ireland, not once has a car used by joyriders been found to be associated with paramilitary activity. I cannot over-emphasise that point. I have made that statement many times, and never been challenged in any meaningful way. Not once in 25 years has a joyrider's car or the joyriders in it been found to he associated with paramilitary activity.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Hendron: We have been asked to keep our speeches brief.
Do hon. Members really know what happened on the night in question? My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) mentioned the policeman who gave evidence, but another person—Mr. Brannigan from the Lower Falls road—also made a statement. He came to me within days of the killings. The fact that he came to see me rather than a representative of another political grouping showed that he had a certain credibility.
He said that he came up the Suffolk road and turned left into the Upper Glen road to take a short cut home, but realised that it was not a short cut at all and did a U-turn in the dark. Of course, his car lights were on. Members of the Parachute Regiment's patrol seemed to come out of the darkness, and they surrounded him. He was threatened and ordered not to drive on. He put the car to one side and got out, and was searched with his hands on the car.
As Mr. Brannigan stood there, he heard the joyriders' car in the distance approaching quickly, as joyriders' cars are wont to do. As it came nearer, soldiers of the patrol further up the road, whom he had not seen and of whose presence he had not been aware, started firing. As the car went past him, the soldiers standing beside him also started firing at the car; and as the car passed, more soldiers who were part of the same patrol—also people he had not seen—started firing, too. The car came to a halt.
Mr. Brannigan said that he saw no checkpoint, but when is a checkpoint a checkpoint? Is it when a soldier or policeman steps out with a red light? I am not sure of the definition, but Mr. Brannigan did not see a checkpoint. I am not arguing that there was not a checkpoint further up the road in the darkness, but, if the patrol was so innocent, why did it try to subvert the course of justice? Why, according to the policeman's evidence, did one soldier try to hurt another soldier's leg? That is an important point. Hon. Members will be aware that Pierce Jordan was also shot dead on the Falls road while running away.
According to the law, any soldier who kills a civilian is exonerated if he testifies that he believed that his life or that of one of his comrades was in danger. We should remember that tens of thousands of soldiers have been in Belfast and Northern Ireland in the past 20 years and thousands of people have been killed, with many more thousands being injured. It is fair to say that millions of shots have been fired. Yet, of all those shots, it would appear that when only two of them were fired can it be said that the soldiers acted outside the law.
Sir Brian Hutton, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, said that it was right that Private Clegg should be convicted in respect of the unlawful killing of Karen Reilly and should receive a just punishment. I accept that there is something wrong with the accusation of murder, and that perhaps a charge of culpable homicide or manslaughter should have been considered a long time ago.

Mr. Mallon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The difficulty is that we are trying to solve a legal matter by military means. We should remember the words of Lord Denning:
Be you ever so high, the law is above you.
Over the years in Standing Committees, in the House and in debates on emergency legislation, I have proposed the introduction of lesser charges—not for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), but so that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the legal process would have an opportunity to deal effectively with serious crime rather than the opportunity being wholly obviated by the single charge, especially as a result of the Mcllhone decision made in the House of Lords in, I think, 1970. In effect, that decision makes it impossible for the whole gamut of the law to apply in these circumstances.

Madam Speaker: Order. This is a short debate, in which many hon. Members have a great deal of interest and a direct involvement. If we must have interventions, I hope that they will be very short. I need to call many hon. Members.

Dr. Hendron: The present campaign in Britain appears to want Private Clegg released whatever the evidence shows. If he is set free as a political gesture to that campaign, a new set of rules will have been established—one for soldiers and one for citizens in Northern Ireland. The conviction among many of my constituents that double standards apply in Northern Ireland will only be reinforced.
Let us look at the campaign. I shall quote directly from the Daily Express, which reported Private Lee Clegg's words on 20 January. Lee Clegg was supposed to have said:
If I am released it would not be a victory. Two young people have been killed in a tragic situation which could have been avoided if I had been given the correct rules.
I give Private Lee Clegg credit for stating his regret. But he also said on radio one morning recently that he had been well briefed that morning. Perhaps the issue surrounds not only Private Clegg but that whole patrol of the Parachute Regiment out that night. What about the senior officer or officers who gave that briefing?
On television the other evening, a former lieutenant colonel of the Parachute Regiment was asked on the "Counterpoint" programme in Northern Ireland whether he would offer an apology on behalf of the Parachute Regiment to the family of Karen Reilly. His answer was "Never." I say to that and to other comments, especially in some of the papers such as the Daily Mail: let us not have the cheap rhetoric of pseudo-patriots. Let us not have cries that, in reality, seem to amount to "Rule Britannia": that no matter what our boys at the front do, it seems to be all right.
I was asked on a television programme in the past few days whether the people of my constituency were sympathetic to the family of Private Lee Clegg, considering that he was—possibly—facing many years in prison. I answered that they most certainly would be sympathetic to the family of anybody, soldier, policeman or anyone else, if their son were facing a long time in prison.
I also asked whether the people running the campaign, especially Conservative Members, would show sympathy for the families of Patrick Kane, Sean Kelly and Michael Fitzsimons, who seem to face many years in prison for a crime which I believe they did not commit. Would they show sympathy for Mrs. Sarah Conlon, the widow of Guiseppe Conlon, mother of Gerry Conlon of the Guildford Four? Hon. Members have seen, I am sure, the film "In the Name of the Father". Guiseppe Conlon, who was my patient and constituent, was allowed to die in prison. An apology has never been given to his widow, Mrs. Sarah Conlon, who still lives in west Belfast.
The people I represent would support generosity towards prisoners. I most certainly support generosity towards prisoners. I shall not be so arrogant as to say how long Private Lee Clegg should be in jail. However, many others should be there with him, or at least should be facing the due course of the law. When generosity is shown—I believe that it will be shown—let it be across the board and to both communities in the North of Ireland.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate on behalf of Lee Clegg and his family, as his constituency Member of Parliament. Thousands of words have been written over the past few weeks about this tragic case, and I have received hundreds of letters urging me to do everything in my power to put right this injustice.
Lee Clegg did not set out to kill anyone as he went on his patrol on that dark night. He was a soldier trying to do his duty. He was faced with a split-second judgment: a car speeding towards his colleagues. He thought that the


occupants were terrorists. He fired, and we are asked to believe that the first three bullets were lawful, but that the fourth shot, fired in that same burst, was not. That fraction of a second has resulted in Lee Clegg being convicted of murder and serving a life sentence.
I do not believe that, had there been a jury, it would have found Lee Clegg guilty in those circumstances. Perhaps his case is a perfect and clear example of why we need to get rid of Diplock courts as soon as possible and return such judgments to ordinary men and women, who can bring common sense and a sense of decency to bear. Only in that environment can normality and trust develop to bring about peace and sustained development.
I understand and acknowledge the frustration felt by people in Northern Ireland, who believe that far more media coverage has been given to a British soldier accused of murder than to Irish people faced with injustice. Whoever is at fault in the press campaign, it is not Private Lee Clegg. I say to the fair-minded people of Northern Ireland that it is wrong to want an innocent man to stay in prison just because he is a British soldier.
Injustice must be fought wherever it occurs, and I hope that all cases that have been mentioned in the context of Clegg's case are examined again. The Government have a tremendous opportunity to investigate all cases of injustice in Ireland and on the mainland, to convince people of their continuing vigour to pursue a just and lasting peace settlement.
There are many questions relating to this case that cause Clegg's legal advisers and me considerable concern. The initial investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army found no case to answer. A television programme later implied wrongdoing and promoted the existence of a shoot-to-kill policy, citing this case as an example. It is interesting to note that the producer of that programme now says that he has an open mind on Lee Clegg's guilt. That was not the case in the programme.
The quality of Clegg's legal advice is also in question. I find it staggering to hear that there was no detailed questioning and examination of the ballistics evidence. We have heard this morning about the 34 shots fired. There was also the question of who had been involved in the briefing that night. If the security forces knew that the car was driven by joyriders, why were the ordinary soldiers on the patrol not told, as Clegg maintained? Why did not the defence at Clegg's trial pursue that point?
It is clear that, at the time of Private Clegg's conviction, there was a rising tide of belief in the nationalist community that the security forces were out of control. I cannot help but feel that Clegg's murder charge had more to do with politics than justice. I have a suspicion that it was decided to make an example out of someone, and Lee Clegg happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If there was a problem with the security forces—I am in no position to judge either way—it was not that of an ordinary private soldier trying to do his duty in a difficult and dangerous situation.
Lee Clegg's legal advisers are collecting new evidence for presentation in the very near future. Lee Clegg does not want to be seen as a hero, but nor is he a murderer. The Law Lords in their judgment indicated the need for change in the law, and it is right for Parliament to consider such changes as required, in detail and not in haste. Never again should security forces face such a dilemma. Regulation of the security forces is definitely required, but it must be fair, and it must be just.
The attempt to discredit Clegg should also be resisted. The courts found that he had no part in the perjury of the feigned injuries. He was also not connected with the infantile and insensitive actions of other companies in the Parachute Regiment.
Every day that Lee Clegg spends in jail is an indictment of British justice. I am pleased that the Ministry of Defence has agreed to pay for fresh examination of the ballistics evidence. Lee Clegg and his family have suffered enough. I hope that the Minister who has the jurisdiction will release Private Clegg as soon as possible. That, I believe, is the will of the overwhelming number of people in Britain.
I must also say, thank God we do not have capital punishment. Otherwise, we may have been arguing about somebody who could have been hanged. Conservative Members especially should note that, many of whom vote in favour of capital punishment. Clegg could have been an innocent victim. I hope that Ministers will look at the case and will release Clegg as soon as possible.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) for raising this important subject so well. I think that, across the House, there is general agreement on many points. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) that no injustice should be allowed to go unchallenged, which includes many of the people mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron). People have been unjustly treated by Diplock courts, but each case must be judged on its merits.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West asked many questions which I shall try to answer. I spent the best part of a year of my life as a British soldier in his constituency, and I have a certain affection for parts of it. I speak with a little knowledge of the subject. During that time, I operated under the rules of engagement—the so-called yellow card. The rules are very tight and clear. I always believed that they were legally binding, and that is extremely important.
For the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with the so-called yellow card, I will quote from a white photocopy of it:
In all situations, you are to use the minimum force necessary. FIREARMS MUST ONLY BE USED AS A LAST RESORT.
A soldier is meant to challenge, if at all possible:
'ARMY; STOP OR I FIRE'".
I suggest that that is difficult in the middle of a gunfight.
Paragraph 5 states:
You may only open fire against a person:
if he* is committing, or about to commit an act LIKELY TO ENDANGER LIFE" .

Mr. Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that the yellow card is a classified document.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. Apparently it is all right to quote from a classified document, so the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is in order to do that. I learn something all the time.

Mr. Robathan: The document is indeed classified and restricted. I am afraid to say that I have one somewhere in my bottom drawer from my first tour in 1976.
The card states:
if he* is committing, or about to commit an act LIKELY TO ENDANGER LIFE, AND THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO PREVENT THE DANGER.
The asterisk informs the reader:
*'She' can be read instead of 'he' if applicable.
I hope that that is not political correctness creeping into the military.
It is essential to have clearly understood rules, and soldiers are trained in respect of those rules. They are asked questions about the yellow card during their training. The yellow card also states that a soldier may "fire only aimed shots" and
no more rounds than are necessary".
The hon. Member for Bradford, South referred to a shoot-to-kill policy. In the light of the yellow card, the idea of such a policy is ridiculous. When we talk about shooting, people expect the best trained marksmen to hit someone in the leg. We always hear people asking, "Why didn't they shoot him in the legs?"
I spent a lot of time shooting and I was damned lucky to hit the target. That is the case with nearly all soldiers, especially at 100 m in the dark. One is very lucky to hit the target in such circumstances, let alone inflict a neat flesh wound in someone's calf. People who talk about a shoot-to-kill policy and want to know why soldiers do not shoot at people's legs show a remarkable naivety and lack of understanding.
The rules of engagement state:
FIREARMS MUST ONLY BE USED AS A LAST RESORT.
It is essential to understand that.
It is important to understand why soldiers are in Northern Ireland. They were sent there in 1969 to protect the nationalist population. Wiser and greyer heads on the Opposition Benches might remember these things better than me. They were sent to keep both communities apart. Their mission is, and remains, to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the defeat of terrorism. Every soldier knows that. Ask any soldier on the streets of Northern Ireland and he will confirm that. Incidentally, I am glad to see that soldiers are not allowed out in daylight these days, not because they are so ugly, but for other reasons.
As soldiers are aware of their mission, and as they walk around day in, day out—night in, night out, as it now is—for six months, they remember that they are supporting the RUC in the defeat of terrorism. Most soldiers are unlikely to see a terrorist. Most soldiers are issued with 30 rounds at the beginning of their tour, and they return the same 30 rounds at the end of their tour, which are carefully checked back in by the quartermaster.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West referred to millions of rounds being fired. That is simply not true. I was shot at, but I never fired a round. About 300 people have been killed by the security forces, but that must be balanced against the 2,800 or 3,000 who have been killed by terrorist action.
The problem about firing is that soldiers are sent to Northern Ireland to react. They can only react. They do not go out shooting. They can only react to an incident as they see it. I am delighted to say that there is currently a ceasefire, which I hope will continue. However, we do not send soldiers to Northern Ireland as targets. They must

react when it comes to it. They must protect and support the RUC, but they are no good in Northern Ireland if they will not react when a terrorist appears, perhaps on the one occasion in six months of their tour.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury said, the difficulty is that soldiers are so concerned about the rules of engagement that they will not fire. It is very difficult to make them use their weapons. If that is the case, they should not be there. While we would all agree that it would be preferable if they were not there, they must be able to fire when the need arises.
To be honest, people are restrained, and I believe that that balance is about right. This debate is about keeping that balance right.
I have two examples, one of which took place in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, West. In January 1976, a stolen car on the west circular road in Ballygomartin or Springmartin stopped beside two Protestants who were walking down the road and fired upon them. That car was stolen. The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that no joyrider has ever set out to kill soldiers. Well, one cannot ask everyone who steals a car whether that person is a joyrider.

Dr. Hendron: I referred to a joyrider's car travelling at speed. I was not talking about a stolen car. There are hundreds of stolen cars in Belfast. A joyrider's car travelling at speed has never been associated, or found to be associated, with paramilitary activity.

Mr. Robathan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is very difficult to determine whether a joyrider is a terrorist.
With regard to the west circular road in January 1976, two people were murdering Protestants. None of us would welcome that. A patrol emerged from the bushes and saw what happened. It was able to fire at the car—we can all agree, quite rightly—and it killed the driver.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
I regret that man's death as I regret every death, but it must be right that the patrol reacted to someone committing murder. That involved the tragic death of Jim McGrillen. The car sped away.
Let us suppose that the soldiers emerged five seconds later and saw the car speeding away. Let us suppose that one of the soldiers said, "Get it, get it!" and the patrol opened fire. That is the difficulty with which soldiers are confronted.

Mr. Mallon: The soldiers knew that they were armed.

Mr. Robathan: Yes, but if the patrol had arrived five seconds later, the soldiers would not have known that those people were armed. Soldiers must obviously have the right to fire, and they must be well constrained. However, we must consider the confusion that may exist on the ground in darkness.
My second example relates to an incident in early 1989, when New Barnsley police station came under heavy fire—millions of rounds, to quote the hon. Member for Belfast, West—from somewhere in Springfield avenue. A patrol of soldiers rushed out, came under fire, went behind a house and looked down Springfield avenue. The soldiers saw two men running away with what they thought was a rifle. The soldiers fired and hit a man. Sadly, the


ammunition was not much good, and the man got up—leaving, I am glad to say, the rifle behind. He got away without being charged.
We would all say that it was absolutely right for the soldiers to fire. They fired about 10 rounds, but hit the man only twice. It was dark, and the soldiers were perhaps fearful. There was confusion. One of the soldiers believed that the terrorist had got into a stationary car, and he shot at it. That is the kind of confusion that can occur. Luckily, no harm was done. We must understand the difficulties on the ground. The difficulties lie in applying the terms of the yellow card in the heat of the moment.
Our soldiers are public servants. They are sent by us to work out the rules of engagement. They are given lethal weapons, and they are sent to do our bidding.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's clarification of the soldier's position, and I share his argument. However, he referred earlier to Diplock courts and mistakes. As I objected to those courts at the very beginning, does he accept from me that, even in Great Britain, where there are juries, there have been mistakes in judgments, which have sometimes brought wrong convictions and which have sometimes released guilty people? It is not necessarily that Diplock courts are so wrong, it is a matter of the human influence.

Mr. Robathan: I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Any miscarriage of justice, be it in a jury trial or with a judge sitting without a jury, must be deprecated.
As I was saying, our soldiers are public servants and they have excellent training, but accountants, lawyers—I believe that there are some in the Chamber—and doctors have three, four, five or six years' training, and they occasionally make mistakes. It is nonsense to say that a soldier is so professional that he cannot make a mistake. I heard that mentioned recently. The difference between a soldier and an accountant is that, generally, accountants do not kill people when they make mistakes, although of course doctors might.
Our soldiers are public servants, and they are trying to do their best. They are not perfect—they get bored and they sometimes indulge in appalling practices, as was mentioned in respect of the montage of the car in the barracks. Occasionally, they have been involved in criminal activity in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Certainly, in Northern Ireland, there have been well-documented cases of appalling activity and murder, for which people deserve to be found guilty of murder. Such cases are very exceptional.
The case of Private Clegg also involved some disgraceful behaviour, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and others have mentioned. It involved one man being convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. It involved a terrible lack of discipline. As a former officer, I think that an officer on that patrol was very lucky to get away without being punished. As I understand the facts, I would have wished him to be punished.
Obviously, wrong was done, but, in the Clegg case, there were two car thieves—that is a better term than "joyriders"—who refused to stop. Yes, there 'were joyriders there the whole time, but there were also patrols with red torches there the whole time who tried to stop people. They hardly deserved to die. I agree that it was not

a fitting punishment for being in a stolen car. It transpires, according to the Daily Mail, that Karen Reilly's father was the same man, McGrillen, who was killed in January 1976. That is a double tragedy to be visited on that family, and they should have nothing but sympathy. It is yet more pain and more tragedy.
In that case, the yellow card was not followed. The Law Lords' judgment has great sense in it—I do not criticise it—but it was dark and there was confusion. Who can say that Clegg did not believe in good faith that he was following rule 5a(3), which states that one may fire if someone is
deliberately driving a vehicle at a person and there is no other way of stopping him.
That rule may now be dropped from the yellow card because of the Clegg case.
Is young Clegg a murderer? Wrong was done, but is he in the same league as sectarian murderers? Is he in the same league as Mr. Kelly, who blew up the chip shop on the Shankill road? Is he in the same league as those who steal cars to kill? I suggest not. I very much hope that he will be freed as soon as possible.
Even Sinn Fein, even many members of the nationalist community in west Belfast, and even the hon. Member for Belfast, West will not say, even in moral outrage, that Clegg is in the same league. They will not seriously compare him with those terrorists. Our soldiers are servants of the public. They deserve our support, sympathy and understanding when errors are made, but that does not mean that they need excuses.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, I believe that the Select Committee should examine the matter. Members of that Committee may interview lawyers and, as legislators, decide on the best way to safeguard public servants who, in good faith, go about their duties. Private Clegg has been punished enough for any errors that he and others may have made on that night.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I raised my point of order to clarify the situation with regard to the yellow card. It is classified. The reason for its being classified is not to let the enemy know when our soldiers are going to open fire. From now on, thanks to the hon. Member for Blab:y (Mr. Robathan), all they have to do is to read Hansard. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would take the hint when I mentioned that the yellow card was classified.
I recently returned from a visit to my county regiment at Deny. I came back with nothing but admiration, not only for my own regiment but for our forces throughout Northern Ireland, especially those who have served for the past 25 years, patrolling the trouble spots of the Province and carrying out their duties with tremendous professionalism and dedication under enormous strain.
One must remember that, until the recent ceasefire, every member of the security forces was considered by IRA terrorists a target for assassination, whether on duty or not. That is the pressure that our soldiers lived with 24 hours a day, year after year. In many ways, it has been a forgotten war. As long as we managed to keep the lid on it and to contain it, we were quite happy for them to bear the brunt of the problem.
I have recently read and heard criticism that 300 people have been killed by the security forces, and that only two of the latter have been convicted of murder. That is a


sign that people think that there has been a cover-up. It is nonsense. The reality is that 648 members of the security forces have been killed by terrorists. I am convinced that no other security force anywhere in the world would have been as tolerant as the British forces in dealing with such problems in Northern Ireland. Overall, the British security forces in Northern Ireland have a record of which they and we can be proud.
I now refer to the recent debate and controversy following the Law Lords' decision to turn down Private Clegg's appeal against his conviction for murder. We almost seem to have lost sight of the tragic loss of two young lives and the grief that must be felt by their families and their communities. Our condolences and sympathy should be expressed to the bereaved. We should have heard more about that from Conservative Members.
I am concerned also that the media and Parliament have not been objective. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) made that point. Five early-day motions refer to the case. I have sympathy with some, but the others are totally unacceptable.
I take this opportunity to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) on the way in which he has represented his constituent Private Clegg and his parents. He has pursued the case vigorously, but he has not exaggerated the injustice that has been caused. As we have heard, he has acted most responsibly.
Early-day motion 422, which is about Private Clegg and the rules of engagement, is totally unacceptable. It appears to say that there are no occasions when, on killing someone, security forces can be brought before the courts, and that there should be no public accountability for the security forces. The Army does not want that, and I am sure that the people of this country do not want that.
That early-day motion also states that the rules of engagement should be enshrined in the criminal law. As I have already pointed out, that information is classified, and for good reason. It is nonsense that the rules should be enshrined within the criminal law.

Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman spoke for 20 minutes. I have been told to keep my speech short.
As for further action in Private Clegg's case, there are three possibilities. First, if there is new evidence that has not been before the court, it should be brought before the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to decide whether there is sufficient ground to resubmit his case to the Court of Appeal. Secondly, in future, the Secretary of State, who has jurisdiction, could release Private Clegg on licence. I am sure that that option will be considered. Thirdly, there could be a change in the law.
We support the Home Secretary's decision to review the existing law. Of course, a change in the law would not have a direct bearing on Private Clegg's case, but it would obviously be a major factor in a ministerial decision on early release. There is a strong case for a review, as, in the heat of the moment, it is impossible to determine the amount of force to be used.
It would be sensible to allow judges to be able to bring in lesser verdicts—for example, manslaughter—rather than the verdict of murder. Senior officers in Northern

Ireland have always resisted that possibility, but their intransigence has contributed to the verdict of murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence, being passed on Private Clegg. There is no flexibility. If there had been flexibility, I am sure that there would have been a fairer sentence in the case.
I am unhappy that senior Ministers—I refer to the Secretary of State for Defence—appear to have been allowing people to issue briefs on their behalf saying that they are in favour of the immediate release of Private Clegg. While politicians have the right to reflect public opinion, it is dangerous for Ministers to appear to be interfering with the responsibilities of judges.
The Opposition totally support the Home Secretary's decision to review the law regarding sentences. I hope that the high-profile campaign of the case is not counter-productive, although I have a feeling that it may be. The campaign may delay the decision of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to exercise leniency. I hope that it will not have any affect.
I remind the House of something that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South mentioned. If it had not been for Opposition Members—plus some Conservative Members—when we discussed the return of capital punishment in 1990, Private Clegg could have been sentenced to death. I make an exception of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who has a very good record of opposing the death sentence. The same cannot be said of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who is a strong believer in the death penalty. He should reflect that his actions in 1990 could well have had a serious bearing on the case of Private Clegg.

Mr. David Trimble: I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on obtaining this debate. I echo the praise which has been given to the Army and its record in Northern Ireland. I believe that its record as a whole is without reproach, and it is deeply appreciated by my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, and by most people in Northern Ireland.
I also sympathise with Private Clegg in the dilemma he was in, and also in the situation in which he now finds himself. I quite understand that there are feelings that an injustice has been done in this case. It is not, I regret to say, the only injustice. Hon. Members will appreciate that I am keenly aware of what I regard as a much greater injustice done to a man who has now spent nearly 10 years in prison for a murder that he did not commit. The man is a serving member of the British Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment—I refer, of course, to Neil Latimer. I shall not discuss that subject, in view of the time available today.
I agree with one point which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) made. It was admitted in, and agreed by, the court that the initial shots fired by the soldier were lawful. The soldier, with his instincts and reactions, fired three shots which were lawful and then, a split second later—we do not know the exact time—fired a fourth shot which, in a cold courtroom, was dissected and was said to be unlawful. As the hon. Member said, that is an unrealistic approach.
I appreciate that there are great difficulties in saying that a series of events which have been entered into lawfully should continue to be lawful even when the last


elements of that series have been separated and, when regarded in isolation, appear to be unlawful. Obviously, there could be considerable difficulty in drawing lines in this area, but perhaps too fine a judgment of the facts was exercised by the court.
I am not sure that the other factors mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford, South on the ballistic evidence were right. I would ask the hon. Member, and other hon. Members, to please read the judgment. This was not a jury case, but a Diplock case in which the judge had to issue a considered judgment. The judgment of Mr. Justice Campbell is in the Library, as is the decision of the Court of Appeal. Hon. Members who read the judgment may begin to appreciate some of the difficulties not only of the patrol but of the court in dealing with the situation.
I shall now deal with more general issues. Hon. Members have referred to the yellow card, or the rules of engagement. We are in danger of getting ourselves into an extremely difficult and untenable situation if we go down the line suggested by the hon. Member for Canterbury. The yellow card, which is probably getting too precise and detailed, is an attempt to state the law. In so far as it states the law, it is more restrictive than the law.
The law enshrined in the yellow card is the same here as it is in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members will remember that we are dealing with a matter in which the la .w in Northern Ireland is exactly the same as the law in England and Wales. The use of firearms by policemen and soldiers can occur in England and Wales, as it does in Northern Ireland. If changes are made to the law in Northern Ireland, there would be an irresistible case for making the same changes in England and Wales, and that should be borne in mind.
The law enshrined in section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 is identical in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, and it goes wider than the yellow card. There are circumstances in which a soldier can open fire in breach of the yellow card and be within the law as stated in section 3 of the Criminal Law Act. The hon. Member for Canterbury said that a soldier acting in the reasonable belief that he was within the terms of the yellow card could use that as a defence. However, a soldier acting with an honest belief that he was in circumstances outlined within section 3 of the Act could also use that as a defence. That is the law as it is at the moment, and there is no need to make a change in that respect.
The problem facing Private Clegg is that—on the facts presented to the court—he was within the terms of neither the yellow card nor section 3. The hon. Member for Bradford, South said that Private Clegg believed that the car contained a terrorist. I do not know whether he believed that or not, but, had that been his defence, it is possible that he could have been acting within the terms of section 3 if he had an honest belief, and there were reasonable grounds to support that belief. That is a different view of the matter.
Remedies to the situation have been suggested, including the introduction of a new offence of manslaughter. I think that that is entirely wrong, and it would bring about a worse situation. That cure would be worse than the disease. At present, if a person has committed murder, murder is the appropriate charge. To introduce a lesser offence would have the effect only of saying that persons who, at present, are entitled to be acquitted of murder could be convicted of the lesser

offence. The sole consequence of introducing a lesser offence would be that more soldiers would be in prison, and those soldiers—under the law at present—would be innocent.
The measure would simply be a means by which certain members of the community would pursue a desire for revenge, rather than justice. That is an important aspect of the case. If the actions of a soldier or a policeman fall within the law of murder as it is presently defined, murder is the right charge. If a court finds such people guilty, that is the just result. If their actions are not within the law of murder as it is presently defined, they are entitled to be acquitted. That should continue to be the case.
There is a dilemma in the present situation. A person who is not a terrorist has been convicted of murder, but he did not go out intending to commit murder. That person made a mistake in circumstances where fine judgments were called for and in which it was extremely difficult for an individual to make a snap decision. Consequently, there were extenuating circumstances. In the normal course of events, those facts ought to be taken into account in sentencing, but there is no discretion in sentencing. The Secretary of State and the Home Secretary have discretion, as was exercised properly in the case of Private Thain; but when that discretion has been exercised by the Secretary of State, politically motivated people make accusations that the laws have been bent.
A solution may be to return to the discussions of the House of Lords Select Committee on murder several years ago, where the Committee suggested that we drop the mandatory sentence for murder and replace it with a discretion for the judge to make determinate sentences where appropriate. If that had occurred in the case of Private Clegg, it is likely that the judge would have reflected the extenuating circumstances and the difficulties of the case in his sentence. The normal procedures for remission and early release could then follow their course without accusations of political interference in the course of justice. That is the option at which we should look again.
I hope that the Home Secretary's review of the law of murder will not go down the foolish road of introducing a new offence simply to have more soldiers and policemen behind bars.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I am aware that I have limited time, and I want my hon. Friend the Minister to have as much time as possible to respond to the debate, so I shall skim quickly through my notes. I am grateful to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on the Front Bench, because I have a great regard for him in this matter and hope that he can respond fully to what has been said.
If we make a special charge of manslaughter, soldiers serving in Northern Ireland may be increasingly drawn into spates of prosecutions where they are brought before the courts for many marginal issues with regard to the use of their personal weapons. We would then be placed in a position where we were seriously questioning the purpose of their existence on the streets. They are not police, but soldiers. They are not as highly trained as police in police responsibilities. They are armed and trained for combat, and no matter how much secondary training takes place, they will never be police. There is, therefore, always that


compromise. They are there because the situation is imperfect—people have chosen to use violence against civilians and police—and it would be far better if we had thousands of police able to act as our soldiers do now; but we do not, so we compromise.
The key point arises from the Law Lords' report, which said:
He did not kill Karen Reilly from an evil motive but because his duties as a soldier had placed him on the Glen road armed with a high velocity rifle".
We must be careful not to proceed down a road whereby we deny the very purpose of soldiers being there, for there can be no purpose if they hesitate every time they need to use their personal weapon.
I shall not go through the changes to the rules of engagement discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I agree with what he said. I disagree with what the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), said about that business being confidential and restricted. It is not. The key fact is that yellow cards are meant to reflect the criminal law and the confidentiality of those items is not really at stake. Somehow, soldiers must feel confident that they are acting under the law and that what they are doing is justiciable.
In the case of Private Clegg, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) said that those were joyriders like joyriders anywhere in the United Kingdom. He said that, particularly in Northern Ireland, joyriders steal cars night after night, act recklessly and endanger other people's lives, but they are not terrorists and are not shot dead elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman missed one major factor. In Northern Ireland on the night of that incident, going through the mind of every soldier was the fact that he was there because terrorists were on the street. It was likely and possible that terrorists could have been in that car. It is no defence to say that the joyriders were not terrorists, because the soldiers were not to know that. That is an important fact and the Law Lords said that the soldiers were not even told at the time that they were specifically out stopping joyriders.

Dr. Hendron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I do not have time to give way.
The point is simply that they were special circumstances, and we must not lose sight of that fact. We cannot simply say that justice has been done, for justice, as always, must be seen to be done. But justice can be the day in court, and the decision is not necessarily justice. Private Clegg's release is simply about right being done. The public and anybody who cares about the matter will see that his case is about right being done.
We need to reassure soldiers because we ask much, and much is given. We have the finest trained soldiers and, as the hon. Member for Carlisle said, they behave with the greatest restraint on the streets of Northern Ireland. I know of no other armed force that would act as they have, yet they do make mistakes and we need to show tolerance and lenience and make them understand that we shall support them.
We need to reassure soldiers as they so often feel that they have been misunderstood and will not be protected by the very powers that put them there. Some lines from Kipling are apposite in those circumstances:
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!';
But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool—you bet that Tommy sees!

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): That was a powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), who spoke with a good deal of highly relevant experience, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and others who have taken part in this important debate, particularly the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe). I note what he said about his constituent and I know that he is pursuing the case vigorously.
For good reasons, I do not have as much time as I should like to reply to all the points that have been made. This matter deserves careful analysis. The role of the armed forces in Northern Ireland is well known to everyone here this morning and was well set out by my hon. Friends the Members for Blaby and for Canterbury. I speak on behalf of the whole House, and of informed and decent opinion throughout the nation, when I express my profound admiration and gratitude for the exceptional professionalism, dedication and courage of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces in the conduct of their duties over the past 25 years.
Over that period, apart from horrific civilian casualties, more than 640 soldiers have been killed and more than 5,500 have been wounded. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford rightly said, our soldiers have combated the terrorists in a way that no other army anywhere in the world could have done. They have combated them within the rule of law of a democratic society, with huge and almost unbelievable restraint, great discipline and enormous courage. We should be, and are, extremely proud of them.
It is right that, whenever the security forces cause death or serious injury by the use of armed force in Northern Ireland, knowing that they must comply with the law, they be investigated fully and impartially—none of us disagrees on that—and it is right that, where there appears to be a case to answer under the law, it is reported to the independent Director of Public Prosecutions to determine whether the matter should be put before the courts and the courts should deal with the legal issues before them.
It is also important to keep constantly in mind the fact that it has been a cardinal principle of successive Administrations of all political persuasions that the security forces should act within the criminal law and within such additional anti-terrorist powers as are enacted by Parliament after the most careful and detailed consideration.
This Government—and all previous Administrations in the past 25 years—have recognised the need to ensure that our soldiers are given the best training and guidance on the conduct of operations in Northern Ireland in these


difficult circumstances, and I shall say a few words about how the Ministry of Defence prepares soldiers for tours of duty there.
Soldiers receive extensive training before they are deployed to prepare them for the unique circumstances in which they will find themselves. I note the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury about his visit to the Princess of Wales Regiment. In those difficult circumstances, we shall always find people who find that they are not adequately prepared, but we are satisfied that the degree of training, guidance, advice and leadership—

Mr. Brazier: I apologise to my hon. Friend, but I must intervene for a moment on that matter. The battalion made no complaint about preparation. It was excellently prepared and had done an excellent job with no complaints from the public. The point that was made to me by people in the battalion and in many other regiments was that there is still uncertainty about whether the yellow card covers the law. The Clegg case has accentuated that uncertainty. I am sorry to have had to intervene in my hon. Friend's speech.

Mr. Soames: I am glad that my hon. Friend is sorry.
Training includes, for example, testing the soldiers' understanding of the law in a range of realistic scenarios. All possible measures are therefore taken to ensure that soldiers are fully aware of their role in Northern Ireland and of the rule of law. My hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and for Blaby will acknowledge that that is the case. The matter is dealt with extremely thoroughly. The rules governing the conduct of operations, including the use of lethal force—the rules of engagement—are summarised in the yellow card, which is issued to soldiers in Northern Ireland and gives guidance on the rules of opening fire.
It is important to understand and to put into context the nature of the guidance in the yellow card. It is impressed upon all service men deploying to Northern Ireland that in all situations which they may face there they are to use the minimum of force, and that firearms must be used only as a last resort. On those points, there is no uncertainty.
The purpose of the yellow card is to provide soldiers with an easily carried document which summarises the detailed guidance on the law of the United Kingdom with which they have been provided in training. The purpose of the guidance is to enable a soldier to understand the law and to minimise the risk that a soldier might open fire unlawfully. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby explained in graphic detail the huge real difficulties which soldiers face every day in that regard. We keep a constant eye on the scope for improving the guidance which is provided. However, as a form of guidance the yellow card has no legal status and, of course, cannot create independent legal rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury described the Army as being in a state of uncertainty about the law which has been exacerbated by the Clegg case. I am afraid that I cannot agree with that description. The Army as a whole is quite clear about the nature of criminal law that applies in Northern Ireland, but it is right to acknowledge the difficult split-second judgments which are required of all those—whether members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or of the Army—who have to operate within the law in countering terrorism in Northern Ireland.
I know that it is not an easy or a pleasant task to be on the streets or in the deceptively beautiful countryside of Northern Ireland knowing that at any moment one—or others whom it is one's duty to protect—may be the subject of a premeditated, murderous and cowardly attack and knowing also that one may use only reasonable force if one is to stay within the law.
As my hon. Friends know, the reality is that there is no simple solution to those difficulties. For that reason, members of the security forces are given the most detailed and profound training and guidance based on 25 years of hard-won, bitter and painful experience of countering terrorism. For 25 years, the House and all decent public opinion have maintained as a matter of principle the need for the security forces in Northern Ireland to act within the law and to suffer the relevant legal consequences if they digress. That guidance and training incorporate the lessons learned over 25 years; but, given the circumstances in which the security forces in Northern Ireland are required to operate, those factors can never resolve all the dilemmas to which I have referred.
I now turn to the concerns about the wording of the yellow card expressed by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland when he gave his judgment last year on Private Clegg's appeal against conviction for murder. He recommended that the card be amended
to make it clear that the mere fact that actual injury has been caused by a car does not justify a soldier in opening fire".
In giving its judgment on appeal, the House of Lords made it plain that
a minor injury caused by a car
does not in itself justify a soldier opening fire.
When the current yellow card was drafted, it was not intended or judged likely that it would be open to the interpretation that use of lethal force could be justified simply because an injury, particularly a minor injury, had been caused. The guidance and training which I described earlier have always sought to ensure that there is no doubt about the detailed application of the law.
As I have said, an injury has never been considered' to be sufficient justification on its own for opening fire. Nevertheless, we reacted immediately to the Lord Chief Justice's comments by issuing further written guidance to make that even more explicit.
The House may find it helpful also to note that, in giving evidence at his trial, Private Clegg claimed that he had opened fire because he believed that a colleague's life was endangered. The yellow card makes it clear that opening fire may be justified in those circumstances if there is no other way to prevent the danger; but the court did not accept that the fourth shot fired by Private Clegg was justified.
A number of hon. Members and others have suggested that—my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has been very good at keeping me in touch with his evolving views on the matter—the Clegg case demonstrates that the present law is inappropriate to circumstances such as those that resulted in Private Clegg's trial and conviction for murder. It has also been suggested, as my hon. Friend did today, that the yellow card should be given legal status so that compliance with its terms would provide immunity against criminal charges.
While recognising the very genuine concerns behind those requests, we believe that it is important to the credibility of the actions of the security forces in Northern


Ireland that, except where there is a clear need to give them additional powers, they are seen to be operating within exactly the same laws as those applying to any other citizen. Of course, there is a respectable opinion that the situation which they face in carrying out their specific duty to maintain law and order should be recognised in the construction and application of the criminal law; equally, there are many who would think it wrong in principle to accord them exceptional status of that kind.
Of course, those issues require the most difficult judgments. In response to the renewed debate on the issues which Private Clegg's conviction has generated, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced that he has initiated a review that will examine the law governing the use of lethal force in the maintenance of law and order. I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend, who has raised the question of service and Ministry of Defence involvement, that we shall be involved very closely in the review.
The review will consider the position of both policemen and soldiers. It would be quite wrong to decide in advance of the review that there can be no case for considering whether the creation of a lesser offence than murder might apply to those who use lethal force in the course of carrying out their duty to maintain law and order. The concept that the yellow card should be given legal status will also be addressed during the review which my right hon. and learned Friend has set in train.
I am quite sure that the correct course is to proceed with that review and I cannot agree with the suggestion that it be postponed to permit the Defence Committee to carry out its own inquiries first, although views will be expressed to the Committee in the usual manner.
I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to await the review's conclusions, which my right hon. and learned Friend has undertaken to announce in due course. I know that he will take note of the strong views expressed in today's debate about the need for a reform of the law and the form which such changes might take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury also raised the difficult question of expediting court hearings and I sympathise with his motivation in raising that point. No one would wish there to be extensive delay—with all the attendant anxiety that that can cause—before such difficult cases come to court.
I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be taking note of the views that have been expressed today. He is aware of the concerns and is keen to keep to a minimum the time before cases—whoever the accused—come to trial.
I believe that it is of the utmost importance that the Government do all they can to protect the lives of those decent and courageous men and women who serve their country so well in Northern Ireland.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury for the courtesy with which he has dealt with the matter and kept us informed of his thinking. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) said, although I am unable to agree with many of his comments. However, he presents his views with clarity and precision. The hon. Member for Bradford, South presented his constituent's interests clearly and boldly.
My hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and for Blaby bring to the House very real experience of the split-second decision making that is required while soldiering in Northern Ireland. Their experience is highly relevant and I am thankful that people who have served in difficult circumstances in our armed forces can bring a measure of authority to our debates. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), in his excellent and admirable speech, outlined and dealt with many of the real difficulties that we face in this area.
All hon. Members agree that keeping the peace is a crucial and critical task in which British soldiers have played a glorious and an heroic part. That is why we will always be prepared to examine any evidence that is brought before us by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and by others to see how we can continue to refine the training and experience that we give to our soldiers before and upon deployment.
As my hon. Friend knows, we ask very young men who are armed with high-velocity weapons to make difficult decisions in a split second in the dark when it is raining, when their adrenalin is pumping and when they may be very frightened. Their discipline and training over the years have proved successful. They have given the British Army and services a record of which they can be proud in Northern Ireland—a fact for which our nation and the House are grateful.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on the tribute that he paid to his regiment. I am glad that he found its members in good heart. I am grateful to all who have taken part in this debate for the measured, clear way in which they expressed their views. The Government will take note of all of them. I assure the hon. Member for Bradford, South that his points about Private Clegg will be considered and referred to the proper quarters. Again, I thank all who have taken part—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury—for giving me the opportunity to respond to this important debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): It may be convenient for the House to know that there is a fault in the Division Bell system. It is not a fire alarm.
We now move to—

Mr. Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is for the Chair, yes.

Mr. Brazier: There was a reference in the debate that has just closed to an early-day motion on the Order Paper. May I put on record the fact that it includes the words
recognising that soldiers must obey the law"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an abuse of the Chair.

Care in the Community

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss community care and mental health, on which there has been quite a lot of activity in the House recently. Adjournment debates have been held, and several private Members' Bills of significance have been introduced—by the hon. Members for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) and for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), for instance—all dealing with various aspects of care in the community.
It is therefore right, in the relatively calm atmosphere of this Adjournment debate on a Wednesday morning, that the House should have the chance to discuss these matters under the new Jopling procedures—

Mr. Don Dixon: I believe he is in America, and we were here late Monday night and Tuesday night.

Mr. Kirkwood: Possibly so; that might not be far enough away for some of us, but it is a matter for him.
This is a good chance to see how the community care changes are being implemented 18 months on. Community care is the right policy, and the Government have been right to implement it, although the way in which they have done so has caused some difficulties. I suspect, however, that those difficulties were inevitable given the radical nature of the changes. Any political Administration would have had problems getting from where we were to where we want to be.
I think that hon. Members agree that community care is right in principle and that the Government are right to adopt and promote it. It has a great deal of potential; we must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater when dealing with some of the criticisms that have rightly been levelled at the implementation of the policy. Moving from what was always a service-based policy to a much more flexibly managed, needs-led approach certainly is a radical change, which has had profound effects for users of the service and for their carers. The effects have also been profound for health care professionals and social work and social services professionals, and there have been consequences for the way in which voluntary groups operate too. All these people have had to respond dramatically to the changes implemented in the past 18 months.
I acknowledge the value of the work done by counsellors in social work and social services committees throughout the country, although I suspect that the Minister may not quite share my enthusiasm. They have done a great deal to make the policies work in the face of considerable troubles and difficulties. Immense challenges have faced them and many demands have been put on them. The House owes them a debt for the work that they have done and for the diligence with which they have discharged their duties.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some Labour-run authorities, of which Lancashire is perhaps the worst example, have

badly mishandled the implementation of community care, and that it is not right to give blanket approval to the work done by social security committees on county councils—

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Social services committees.

Mr. Hawkins: Social services committees in some counties have done a good job, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, but some county councils have misused the resources.

Mr. Kirkwood: I was desperately trying to avoid that kind of tone. Lancashire has lost £14 million. I do not know how it has husbanded its resources, but it would have been a clever trick for anyone to make a fist of the situation after losing £14 million. I am trying to stay above that sort of party political argument. Of course the hon. Gentleman's point was quite legitimate and I do not criticise him for making it, but I am trying to take a more philosophical approach to some of these problems. We owe that to the counsellors and to those who use the services—after all, it is the latter who suffer.
I was pleased to note that the Audit Commission's report, "Taking Stock"—I am sure that all hon. Members have read it—acknowledged that counsellors have shown themselves capable of responsible stewardship and of managing the process as well as might be expected. It is always easy to see things clearly with hindsight, but when Sir Roy Griffiths initiated the process he made it clear that he thought he was setting the agenda for a decade ahead. I think that the Government have been trying to travel too far too fast. The evidence in "Taking Stock", published in December, strongly suggests to me that some of the local authorities being asked to administer the new system do not possess the management information systems to enable them to cope with the uneven demand that they are facing in the first five or six years of the transition.
Local authorities are having to deal with existing protected clients under the old social security system—residential care—and with new clients who are coming on stream now. It is impossible to anticipate demand without sophisticated new techniques. The Audit Commission report makes it clear to my satisfaction that we expected local authorities to do too much without adequate tools. I should like the Minister to bear that thought in mind for the rest of the debate. Perhaps we should be thinking in terms of reaching our goals after 10 years instead of rushing in a manner that makes it difficult for people to cope.
Given all the evidence that we have it seems to me that there is an unanswerable case for setting up a standing working group that would involve local authority representatives, academics, departmental representatives and so on to oversee funding and many of the other issues which I expect to be covered in the next hour and a half. I hope to persuade the Minister of this idea. If he cannot respond to it today, perhaps he will respond to my suggestion later in writing. I am prepared to wait for the right answer. It is vital to get people to sit around a table in good faith to look at some of the problems of funding that are emerging and to deal with them as best they can.
The first issue that such a group would want to examine is the almost irresistible pressure that the 1990 legislation will place on health service professionals to cease providing long-term health care. The Department of


Social Security transferred resources to local authorities to deal with residential care, and I understand the rationale behind that. As a consequence, the Government were able to control the budget, which was previously demand led.
Health care authorities are discharging long-term patients, including geriatric patients, into the community. I understand that care packages must be in place before such patients are allowed to be discharged, but when they are they become the responsibility of the local authority. At that stage, their needs are considered from a medical point of view, and their means are considered.
If the Government do not take a firm grip in the next few years, and if the process that I have described is allowed to develop unfettered, irresistible pressure will be placed on trusts, community health units and acute hospitals to divest themselves of long-term national health service patients, who hitherto have expected cradle-to-grave treatment. They have expected, rightly, because they have paid national insurance contributions, free long-term health care. That care will not be available to them in five or six years' time. I note that the Minister shakes his head in dissent. I shall be interested to hear him on this point. It will be a crucial part of and an influence on the funding that is available for community care in the hands of local authorities.
It is believed that funding is spiralling out of control, and the evidence suggests that the authorities are right. I spoke to the British Medical Association about the matter. I am sure that the Minister knows the figures. In 1990, 73,000 people were registered as national health service long-term care patients. In 1993, the total had fallen to 59,600. There must be a minimum level of national provision for long-term health care patients, but I see no evidence that the Government understand that. We cannot allow the number of long-term health care beds to fall indefinitely. I sense that the Minister wishes to intervene, and I am happy to give way to him.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): Has the hon. Gentleman seen the Government's continuing care guidance, which was drawn up as a result of the Leeds case? Has he submitted his views? Is he aware that there are NHS beds not only in hospitals but in nursing homes, which are not included in the figures that he has presented to the House?

Mr. Kirkwood: I understand the Minister's second point. I have been wrestling with some of the Government's guidance and positions on long-term health care. I am not alone in continuing to be slightly confused. Indeed, the BMA is slightly confused about exactly what the Government are saying about long-term health care.
The draft guidance that is supposed to be the subject of consultation states that
the hospital will need to take account of the needs of other patients in determining how long the person can continue to occupy an NHS bed.
That is to be contrasted with the guidance in 1989, accompanying circular HC(89)5, which stated:
No NHS patient should be placed in a private nursing or residential care home against his/her wishes if it means that he/she or a relative will be personally responsible for the home's charges.

Over the past few years, various positions have been taken in guidance that has been issued by the Department of Health. The confusion continues to obtain. If the BMA is confused, I suspect that others are too. The Government have a duty to clarify exactly what is happening.
Some weasel words have been introduced into some of the guidance circulars on which consultation is now taking place. I refer to the NHS executive guidance, which for the first time says that the NHS remains responsible for care "within available resources". It says that every effort should be made to meet the preferences of the patient
within the practical options and resources available.
These words are incapable of precise meaning. When the Minister and I have to throw ourselves at the mercy of the NHS in 20 or 30 years' time, in our twilight years, will we be entitled to know the exact circumstances in which the NHS will provide and those in which it will not?
The shunting—a terrible piece of jargon—of health care resources into the local authority area for community care is a matter of singular and continuing concern. The same can be said of the circular and consultation process. The Minister and his Department should urgently try to resolve and clarify the issue. Similarly, it should be considered urgently within the review process that I have proposed.

Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems about the interface between health services and social services is that in many counties, including Lancashire, social workers have insisted on contradicting the advice of general practitioners and allowing elderly people who have not been in very good health to stay at home? When those people have had suddenly to be admitted to hospitals as emergency cases, an intolerable burden has been placed on hospitals and health services generally. That is one of the difficulties that the new system has thrown up in areas where social workers have insisted on countermanding GPs' advice on the best places for their patients.

Mr. Kirkwood: If that is true, it would cause me some concern. I have never heard of such circumstances, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. If that has happened, we should examine it carefully.
Funding is the crucial and core issue. I do not want to demand unlimited amounts of money. It is too easy for Opposition politicians to say that we need blank cheques. We know that blank cheques are not available and it is stupid to try to operate on that basis.
The 1994–95 local government settlement meant a difficult year for local authorities—I think that everyone would accept that in his or her quiet moments. It would seem that 1995–96 will be an even more difficult year. It is unfortunate that we are entering a crucial phase of the transition in community care at a time when local authority budgets are severely constrained.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very important, in these days of public spending constraints, that local authorities spend the money allocated to them specifically for community care through the standard spending assessment? There are numerous examples of Liberal Democrat-controlled


councils, or where the Liberal Democrats have a major hand in controlling policy within those local authorities, that show that they are not spending—

Mr. Hinchliffe: It is ring-fenced.

Mr. Banks: I will deal with that point. Indeed, it is not, and the hon. Gentleman should know that.
The fact is that if one looks at Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities—those in which the hon. Gentleman's party has a hand, and perhaps he will comment on this, in Cornwall—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman did not have the Floor for a speech. A brief intervention was appropriate.

Mr. Kirkwood: I invite the hon. Gentleman to make an intervention in another debate. It is not a worthwhile use of the time of the House to debate individual councils. I stand by the statement that I made: the Audit Commission found that, by and large, councils were doing a good job in difficult circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman wants to hire a hall in Cornwall, I would be happy, on a day and place of his choosing, to appear on a public platform and argue with him long and hard about the individual circumstances of Cornwall. But I do not want to do that this morning. I am trying to keep the debate slightly above the tone of our usual debates, but I do not think that I am succeeding.

Mr. Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is succeeding, because I am not going to attack him on a party political basis, as he is making a thoughtful and helpful speech. These are serious issues.
To what extent, none the less, does the hon. Gentleman place the responsibility on local authorities to use their money wisely? I give him one example—I shall not mention the political party, although he is a member of it. In Devon, the Liberal Democrats took control in 1993, reversed a decision to close local authority homes and is now placing residents in local authority homes at a cost of £400 a week, when in the private sector they can get better care at £200 a week. Is that not something for which local councils have a responsibility? It is not all the Government's fault.

Mr. Kirkwood: Again, if the hon. Gentleman wants to hire a hall in Devon, I will happily debate individual circumstances with him. From memory, I recall that Devon lost about £16 million. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Of course I confirm that local authorities must act responsibly and spend money wisely. I have no evidence that the council in Devon has acted in anything other than the best interests of its users. The hon. Gentleman must understand that it is sustaining a loss. The rules changed, as he knows, unilaterally and unexpectedly. Losing £16 million is a pretty difficult row to hoe in terms of the provision of crucial services for people who are in a very vulnerable position.

Mr. Nick Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that Devon was the hardest hit of all the counties in the transfer of funds that resulted from the revision of the formula? Despite the attention that is rightly being given to Gloucester and the Isle of Wight, under the old arrangements Devon received 4.6 per cent. of national spend in this area, but under the new formula will receive only about 2 per cent. Whatever the merits of the

argument of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter)—it is legitimate—he must appreciate that the total sum that he proposes is the merest skim of the sums about which we are talking. It is a blue herring.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am obviously failing miserably in my attempt to try to keep us out of a party political dog fight. There will, of course, be legitimate exchanges, but I am trying to concentrate on and accentuate the positive, because I am determined to try to get something out of the Government this morning, even if it is only a promise that they will reconsider my suggestion that a body should be created to consider these issues and that its advice should be made available to the Government.
The Government underestimate the impact on some counties of the unexpected change in the distribution of resources at the beginning of this financial year, and I hope that that will not be forgotten. It should be constantly kept under review, because of the impact—we have heard exchanges that reinforce the point—that it has had on the finances available to some local authorities.
More than anything else—the evidence appeared in the Audit Commission report, "Taking Stock", which was published in December—nobody correctly estimated the high demand that would be evident from the start of the new regime. Expectations, quite properly, have been raised. The Government cannot be held to account for every new demand or expectation encountered, but carers, users, voluntary groups and domiciliary services are experiencing quite unexpected interest and demand. The House and the Government must recognise that and take it into account, otherwise we will face severe examples of retrenchment, harsher eligibility criteria and withdrawal of services. In Gloucestershire, even the legal process is involved. We are heading rapidly towards a tangle of legal challenges in the courts. I do not believe that that is m anybody's interest.
As I understand it, there is no spare money in local authority budgets. No other funds are available from charging or from efficiency savings. The bottom line is that front-line services are now at risk.

Mr. Hawkins: rose—

Mr. Kirkwood: I shall not give way. I have been speaking for far too long already.
The Government must look at that. I suggest strongly that they should set up some review machinery, involving local authorities, to oversee the process for at least the next few years.
The ten-minute Bill of the hon. Member for Dulwich, Community Care (Rights to Mental Health Services) Bill, is a very important measure, which I hope the Government are considering seriously. Evidence produced by the National Association for Mental Health—MIND—shows the need for a crisis service and that extra resources are cost-effective in terms of moving away from acute units to a decent crisis and emergency service.
As I said earlier, the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Croydon North-West, the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill, is an important measure. I hope that the Government are considering that as well. I hope, too, that they will look at some of the constraints that local authorities are under, in terms of the 85 per cent. restriction—the limit on the amount that can be spent from what previously was paid to the private sector. The lack of privately provided domiciliary services in many


areas is making it difficult to ensure that that money is most flexibly used. The Audit Commission said that flexibility, responsiveness and sensitivity were the three key issues in the successful promotion of community care in the future. I am sure that that is right, but I do not think that the Government have got the process right. The funding will create immense problems for the rest of this year and from next year.
One of the best ways in which the Government could cope with the situation today is to say that they understand that some factors need to be considered on an on-going basis, and that they will agree to enter into some arrangement, by way of a working group or some other body, with local authorities and other interested parties, to work these things out for the remainder of the transitional period. If they did that, local authorities throughout the length and breadth of the land would have more confidence that the Government were aware of the difficulties that they face.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I am delighted that we are debating the important subject of community care, whose funding we should monitor to ensure that the objectives are adequately met. I must compliment the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on the restrained character of most of his remarks, and especially on his recognition of the value of this radical innovation.
Not only is community care delivering a better service, as it will continue to do; it represents an important devolution of power to local government. I particularly welcome that, and I am keen for it to work successfully. I pay tribute to people in my local authority of Bromley whom I know well: for instance, the director of social services, Mrs. Clare Marchant—I hasten to add that she is no relation—and other health professionals and administrators who have co-operated effectively in both setting up the system and making it work.
That is not to say that there have not been some transitional difficulties. Such difficulties were inevitable; indeed, I consider it miraculous that such a major change—such a huge innovation—has not involved more problems. In the borough of Bromley, certainly, most of those difficulties were overcome owing to the good will, flexibility and effort contributed by all who were keen for the system to work. I congratulate them on overcoming the problems at an early stage.
It is the easiest thing in the world to make a case for increasing spending on community care, as on any other programme. Again I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, who made a point of saying that he was trying not to make such a case—although his attempts were not entirely successful towards the end of his speech. My wife is very good at suggesting that spending should be increased in various areas, but she is outdone by Opposition Front Benchers, who daily call for more expenditure.
The one thing that those Opposition Members are never prepared to do, however, is announce the grand total of the extra spending for which they are calling and explain to the House, and the outside world, where they will find the money. It is incumbent on anyone who wishes to behave responsibly to explain how the more generous

funds required are to be secured, either through revenue raising or through reductions in certain services. The Labour party, however, becomes very coy when the question is put.
Although wonderful things can be done in community care, are already being done and, no doubt, will be done increasingly in future years, demand is open-ended. Eventually, no doubt, anyone who needed the slightest support could be given 24-hour backing, but the cost would be disproportionate. Balance is needed: we must ensure that adequate provision is made for community care, and that it is recognised as an important step forward, but the budget must not be open-ended.
I do not criticise social workers, who do a tremendous amount of good work, but I feel that they sometimes lose sight of reality and fail to appreciate that budgets must be controlled. All services, by their nature, must be cash limited; otherwise it is impossible to plan, make commitments or make room for other priorities.

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend has mentioned the important role played by social workers. I agree that some social workers do an excellent job, but in my part of Lancashire—and perhaps in my hon. Friend's constituency as well—certain of them are so ideologically opposed to the idea of placing anyone in a private sector home that they refuse even to contemplate it. That is a vast waste of taxpayers' and charge payers' money.

Mr. Merchant: I must say that that is not a problem in my area—I have never encountered such a case—but I know that it has happened elsewhere. In certain parts of the country, care in the community has been impeded by those with tunnel vision who have not been prepared to exercise the flexibility that is required if the system is to work.
We should not overlook the generous funds provided by the Government, which stem from a belief in the system and a conviction that enhanced flexibility and better standards of care are necessary. It is so important to free those who have been trapped in grey institutions, and give them the care that they need, that the Government have rightly set aside large extra sums. In 1995–96, £1.8 billion has been provided in specific additional funds for care in the community-44 per cent. more than in the previous year—while £2.5 billion has been provided for 1997–98. No one could describe that as anything other than generous.
That is not the whole picture, however. The amount available for social services spending generally—the biggest growth area in local government—has doubled since 1990–91, rising from £3.6 billion in that year to £6.4 billion in 1994–95. In 1995–96 it amounts to £7 billion: that is an increase of 9 per cent. in a single year.
Local authorities are free to decide their exact social services budgets. It would be absurd if they were not, given that powers have been devolved to them, and I believe that that is what they want. But to make community care a success in the first years of its introduction they were given a special transitional grant, which was ring-fenced and separate from the revenue support grant settlement.
That grant, however, is not the only source of community care funding, although some people appear to have made the mistake of thinking that it is. It is additional to what authorities can take out of their social


services budgets. Some local authorities, including some that have recently complained about underfunding, have not spent up to their standard spending assessment, which makes their claim that they are not given enough by central Government look rather hypocritical.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the transitional grant was intended to finance new functions and increased responsibilities? He talks of the Government's generosity; will he tell us what they would have spent if the old system had remained? In 1979, £9 million was spent on social service departments' funding of private care; by 1993 the figure was £2.5 billion. What would the figure for the next two or three years have been?

Mr. Merchant: The hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. I assume that he is not suggesting that the old system should have been retained. Care in the community is a better system, and should not be compared with the old one. There is no doubt, however, that Government funding is excessively generous. It is more than adequate to cope with the extra demands placed on local government.

Mr. Bowis: The straight and simple answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) is that under the old system £160 million less would have been spent.

Mr. Merchant: The fact remains that some local authorities have complained about being insufficiently funded. We should, I think, examine their position more closely.
In the Audit Commission's recent second report on care in the community implementation, David Browning pointed to four areas of difficulty for local authorities. I shall refer to all four. He said that there were examples of poor local financial control and that there was increasing demand. That is undoubtedly true. He pointed to local decisions to allocate fewer funds to social services and, of course, he referred to changes in the Government formula.
I have mentioned all four lest someone suggests that I am selecting two that are particularly favourable to my case. However, I shall deal first with those two, the first of which is poor local control. There are undoubtedly examples of local authorities taking on the burden of care in the community, not managing it as efficiently as they should and slipping up on financial control. It is notable that it is those authorities which have screamed and complained most in the past few months. The complaints should be directed at their own internal systems rather than at their lack of grant. Of course, they attempt to find scapegoats for their own problems.
The second area causing difficulty is the decision to allocate fewer funds. As I said earlier, local authorities are free to choose how much they spend in different areas and there is no doubt that some local authorities—the one on the Isle of Wight is an example—have chosen not to spend up to their full SSA on personal social services. There again they have themselves to blame if they suddenly find that they are short of funds.
One of the two other areas is the growth in demand. That presents difficulties because no one can clearly predict demand. Pilot studies and predictions can be undertaken, but until people start knocking at the door requiring the support that local authorities are now duty

bound to provide, one cannot know for sure what the pattern of demand will be. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be flexible and will continue to monitor demand as it arises.
The fourth issue relates to changes in the Government formula. Those changes have benefited many authorities, but they have also resulted in some authorities not getting as much as they might have expected from the previous year's formula. But as, in the first year at least, the formula was biased in their favour and there has merely been rectification to a fairer overall system, they should be thankful for the extra support that they received, perhaps unexpectedly, in the first year of operation.
I do not want to go into specific examples in great detail, but I am sure that some of my hon. Friends intend to do that. However, I will mention that there is a clear contrast between local authorities which have managed the system well, are working within their budgets and delivering an excellent service—my local authority in Bromley is an example—and some others. Hon. Members will know whether a system in their area is working effectively because we are often the first people to receive complaints if it is not.
I have had so few complaints about care in the community that there is clearly no severe underlying problem in my area. That is clear even if I did not believe the evidence that has been provided to me by those who are administering the system. The few complaints that I have received have related to individuals; the system is bound to slip up occasionally in such cases. As soon as those problems have been drawn to the attention of those responsible the difficulties have been put right.
We can contrast that with the experience in counties such as Gloucestershire because despite large increases in funding—for example, Gloucestershire had a 10 per cent. increase in 1994–95 over the previous year—some counties have managed to get themselves into the most extraordinary mess. According to The Independent Gloucestershire council appears to be spending about £1,000 a day on computer consultants who scrapped a community care computer system at a cost of £250,000 and promptly spent £200,000 on replacing it.

Mr. Nigel Jones: The hon. Gentleman talks about increases. Does not he realise that there has been a cut of £3 million in the community care grant in Gloucestershire? That was totally unexpected and occurred after it had arranged all the contracts. The article in Computer Weekly last week entitled "Careless in the Community" bears absolutely no relation to the truth. If the hon. Gentleman would like to speak to Deryk Mead, the social services director in Gloucestershire, I can arrange it.

Mr. Merchant: As I have said, there was a 10 per cent. increase between 1993–94 and 1994–95 in Gloucestershire's social services budget. That is a particularly large percentage in view of the restraints in other areas of local government expenditure. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's defence of poor financial control in that authority.
There are many other examples, but it will suffice to say that authorities that have managed the system well have not only coped but have produced a far better system than before. They have demonstrated that care in the community as a practice and not just as a theory is most


effective. Authorities which have not managed the policy well need to look closely at their systems with a view to improving the standard of care for their people.
At the end of the day this is a major test for local government. As I said at the start of my speech, it represents a major devolution of power to local government, which I welcome. I should like to see local government having more responsibility and to see other functions that are currently carried out by central Government devolved to local government. That can be done only if we are confident that local government will be able to deliver those services at an adequate standard across the country.
This is a test for local government. If it is able—and I sincerely hope that it is—to ensure that the system works smoothly and effectively in the years to come, its case for handling other services will be greatly enhanced. However, if authorities drag their feet and are not able to deliver the efficiency that is expected of them in handling such a major area of policy, it will be difficult to support their understandable arguments that they should also handle other public services.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I welcome this opportunity to speak on community care, albeit in a brief debate. I shall stick to the issue of available funding, because care in the community is so wide ranging. I shall address in particular the difficulties that we recognise in many parts of the country. Some local authorities face serious problems in meeting their statutory responsibilities on community care changes. The Opposition are especially concerned about the impact of that on some of our most vulnerable citizens—the users and carers and people who depend on vital services.
I shall start by briefly recalling the warnings that were flagged up by local authorities when the changes were introduced in April 1993. Although the Minister was not in post at the time, he will recall that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities warned that the changes were underfunded. I remind him that the Association of County Councils, which was then Conservative controlled, also warned the Government about that. At that time, it was concerned with cuts in the counties. The situation has markedly worsened—to be fair, that has been conceded by Conservative Members who have contributed to the debate—as a result of the change in the formula which was introduced with effect from this financial year.
Many metropolitan authorities are finding their base budgets under pressure and cutting services. At least a dozen county authorities—there may be more, but 12 have told me this—have run out of special transitional grant. The Association of County Councils predicts a funding shortfall for the next financial year of at least £200 million. The Minister will know that because he has met the association at least once, and possibly twice, recently. In every way, demand for care services has been beyond all expectations.
One of our concerns is with the way in which the Government have not been willing to consider the issue of unmet need, and to make some sort of measurement of that need. They have discouraged local authorities from doing that. The most sensible way of planning for future care provision is to look at where the gaps are and how

we can plug those gaps. I appreciate that resources are not infinite and that we must consider how funding is used. My concern is that the Government have not planned properly on a national basis to deal with serious unmet need in various parts of the country.

Mr. Hawkins: I know of the hon. Gentleman's expertise in this matter, which he gained before coming to the House. Does he agree that immense responsibility is placed on all local authorities to manage their funding sensibly? Is not one of the most serious criticisms made of local authorities that so badly mishandle funding—Lancashire is a classic example—that they have allowed unlimited, incredibly expensive domiciliary care packages? They have not limited those packages to exceptional cases, as the guidelines from 1992–93 onwards clearly state they should. Purely for ideological reasons, they have not used much less expensive, much better residential care in the private sector.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I hope that people will note the hon. Gentleman's comments carefully. He said that people who have basic human rights should have the opportunity to be placed in institutional care when, as an alternative, his council is clearly and rightly attempting to ensure that they are given the right to remain in the community, which is the aim of the community care changes. He cannot honestly say that authorities have allowed unlimited packages. I have met his colleagues in Lancashire and many local authorities.
I worry about the message that the hon. Gentleman has got across. If he found himself in those circumstances and had certain needs, would he prefer to have services and support supplied to him in his home, and carers in the community to visit him at home, where he has lived all his life? Or would he prefer to be shunted into a private institutional care home, miles from where he lived, as is happening in many instances? It is a human rights issue. The hon. Gentleman said on the record that he would deny human rights. I hope that his constituents will note that.

Mr. Hawkins: rose—

Mr. Hinchliffe: I must continue because my time is limited. I shall cover a number of points that the hon. Gentleman has made, if he will listen.
I recognise that, in many parts of Britain, a serious problem exists in relation to community care and it needs an urgent response. I listened carefully to the suggestions of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who opened the debate. I want to make some constructive suggestions. I hope that the Minister will listen to them in a non-partisan and constructive way and that he will respond in some detail to my points.
It is important to remember that the difficulties arise directly from the implementation of the care elements of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Those elements were clearly Treasury driven. I want to go back a bit further than the Liberal spokesman and to consider why we are in this position with these changes. The 1990 legislation attempted to unravel the mess that the Government had got into during the 1980s and 1990s in relation to the wholesale privatisation of the care of old people. That is why we have the problems.
Earlier in an intervention, I mentioned that private care in residential and nursing homes cost £9 million per annum when the Government came to power, but when


the changes were introduced, it cost the Department of Health and Social Security some £2.5 billion, an enormous increase, which was caused by a deliberate policy of privatisation.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hinchliffe: No. I am sorry. I must continue with my speech. I shall probably give way later if we get to an appropriate point.
The problems arise because of the deliberate policy of the privatisation of the care of elderly people. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) said that we should push people into institutional care in the private sector, but they should have the opportunity to remain in their own homes in the community where they have lived all their lives. In 1979, there were 24,000 private care home places. That had grown to 135,000 by 1993. The comparable increase in the population of elderly, very elderly and vulnerable people is nowhere near that increase.
We are talking about choice. I was interested in the attack on local authority accommodation. That accommodation is part of an individual's choice. He can choose to go to whatever accommodation is appropriate to his particular needs. Many people positively want to choose local authority accommodation. During that period of massive increase in the private sector, the number of local authority home places fell from 102,000 to 63,000. To my knowledge, that figure has decreased even more.
The private institutional sector was deliberately expanded, with massive subsidies from the taxpayer, but national health service provision was deliberately reduced. The figures are on record. Following the implementation of the 1990 Act's care changes, the Government's formula for allocating the special transitional grant to individual local authorities caused immense difficulties, as everyone knows, whatever his or her politics. In the first year of the changes, it pushed money into regions with the most private care home places, despite the fact that, after the changes, residents in those homes had preserved entitlements to Department of Social Security benefits. The Government must have known that many people in homes came from different local authority areas, which were penalised by the formula.
The formula reflected the Government's care priorities: it propped up the business interests of the providers of private nursing and care homes. That is at the heart of many of the problems with which we are dealing this morning.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman does not recognise that, in areas like mine, the shunting is being done by ideologically driven social workers, who are denying choice and who are not even telling the elderly and vulnerable that they have the choice to go into a private nursing home, which is often located just around the corner from where they live and which has high standards. They are told to enter, at double the cost, local authority homes, which are further away. That is a vast waste of taxpayers' money. That is the shunting that is going on and that is the cost.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I think that the Industry and Parliament Trust should extend its scheme to include the placement of Tory Members of Parliament in social services departments, so that they will come to the Chamber

knowing what they are talking about. I did more than 20 years in front-line social work before I came to this place. I know that what the hon. Gentleman has just said is nonsense. He does not deserve an intelligent response to some of the points that he has raised. Frankly, he is speaking through ignorance and I suspect that some of his briefing material is based on The Daily Telegraph rather than on any reasoned analysis of what is happening in social services. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be most grateful if the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) would contain himself.

Mr. Harvey: Is the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) aware that social services authorities have shunted people out of local authority homes, where they have lived happily for many years, and into other provision, which is often further away from their home and less satisfactory? People at an advanced age who feel frail are very much at home in places where they have lived for many years. At that stage of their lives, they find the shift into private care, which is made for ideological reasons, traumatic.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I have come across examples of that in various parts of the country. People have died by being moved in that way. It is a denial of choice and the Government insist that choice is at the root of the care changes. The choice, unfortunately, does not include that positive choice that many people make to enter local authority accommodation and to receive local authority services. There is a denial of choice, which is at the root of many elements of the Government's care policies.
I want a response on those points from the Minister in his winding-up speech. The changed formula that was introduced in the current financial year was geared more closely, as the Minister will tell us, to standard spending assessment calculations, but its introduction, without any form of phasing, has completely undermined the planning and assumptions of local authorities that were better off under the original formula—mainly the county areas, many of which changed political control last year. That is the reason why one or two Tory Members, who would not normally be in the Chamber to discuss something as important as community care, are showing an interest in the subject. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) is waving at the Benches behind me. He may not be aware that a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party is taking place. This is one of the unfortunate problems with meeting on a Wednesday morning. As he knows, my colleagues would be here in force but for that meeting upstairs, which is packed to the rafters.
We have talked about people spending money wrongly, and I hope that Tory Members will listen to this point. The continued preoccupation with the so-called independent sector has forced the councils to spend more money than should have been necessary in many instances. The requirement to spend the bulk of the special transitional grant in this sector is resulting in people being placed in expensive permanent care because, often, councils cannot use the special transitional grant on their own home care services and there is frequently none available in the local independent sector. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire made that point.
Last year, I undertook a survey of directors of social services in England. The responses showed that a third of local authorities found that what was then the 85 per cent. requirement was preventing them from developing alternatives to residential care. Half of them had not spent as much as they wanted on domiciliary care because of the 85 per cent. rule and a fifth stated that they had placed people unnecessarily in residential care because of a shortage of home care services.

Mr. Hawkins: What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the authorities—Lancashire is an example—that have never made any attempt to get anywhere near the 85 per cent. requirement and are continuing to ensure that all their local authority homes are full, at the expense of all the good private sector homes, many of which are going bankrupt? That will cause even more social problems of the kind that the hon. Gentleman claims to be trying to avoid.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The private sector would concede that in some areas there is an overprovision of private care places. I have met people in the private sector who have said that. There are reservations about the use of the independent sector. One of the problems that we should address is the lack of regulation in certain parts of that sector. The Minister will tell us in a moment how the Government are attempting to increase the provision of domiciliary care in the independent sector, but he will not tell me why the Government are not prepared to regulate and register people in that sector. We see people from private cleaning companies going into those homes to care for some vulnerable old people without any sort of check or inspection. That is one of the reasons why caring councils such as Lancashire are worried about using the independent sector.

Mr. Hawkins: rose—

Mr. Hinchliffe: I shall not give way again. I have been reasonable with the hon. Gentleman.
The Government's dogmatic approach to the implementation of the care changes is actively preventing innovation within the community and the development of community alternatives to institutional care. It is also wasting scarce public resources. The Government should respond on that point. It is a valid point which has been made by directors of social services and by local authorities of various political persuasions.
Alongside those constraints, local authorities have had to face up to the impact of the introduction of the health market. The Labour party's most recent survey, "Passing the Buck", was published in December and found clear evidence that in 54 per cent. of the 80 councils that responded, shunting from health to local authorities was a major factor in the current financial difficulties. A third of the councils described the way in which the cost of palliative care was pushed on to them. There were examples of nursing cases being passed on to local authorities. Shorter hospital stays for acute treatment mean early discharges. How far are we going?
Last night, my local evening paper, Yorkshire Evening Post, told the story of an 86-year-old man who, last week, was shunted home from Leeds general infirmary in a taxi in a snowstorm dressed in only his pyjamas and slippers

and wrapped in a towel. His family are, rightly, angry. That is happening not just in Leeds but all over the country. People want to know what is going on. It means that cases such as that have to be wrongly picked up by local authority social services departments. They are having to deal with an increased number of requests for support packages for dependent people who used to recuperate within the NHS.
Anyone here who does not believe that the NHS is being privatised should try to obtain recuperative or respite nursing care for an elderly relative. In my constituency of Wakefield and elsewhere, after a local authority means test, people now have to buy that care from the private sector. I have piles of letters from pensioners in Wakefield and other parts of the country asking why they now have to pay again for the care for which they have paid all their lives, through national insurance and taxation, since the inception of the NHS and, in some instances, even before that. The generation who are responsible for the introduction of the welfare state—people such as Cyril Turner, the 86-year-old I have mentioned—have found that it has deserted them when they are most in need. The privatisation of the health service and community care and the Government's obsession with the market are leaving thousands of people without access to the basic welfare services that they expected to be freely available when they needed them.
The answer to the present problems requires a marked change in direction by the Government. They must recognise that their health changes have led to enormous new demands on local authorities which were never anticipated when the funding arrangements for the care changes were considered. Funding must take account of the effect of the NHS changes on local authority budgets. It is crucial that when the new guidance on continuing care is completed by the Government, it should be made to stick. We should no longer hear of health authorities passing on their funding responsibilities to councils.
The Government must recognise the real difficulties arising in the current year in areas such as Lancashire and Essex—county areas in particular—which have arisen as a result of the sudden switch from one allocation formula to another. Spending plans have had to be scrapped and, in many areas, service cuts made. The Government must abandon the blanket requirement to spend set sums in the so-called independent sector and ensure that local authorities make the most cost-effective use of resources in a way that encourages the development of new services in all sectors.
I began my involvement in social work in the 1960s. I continued to be involved in social work in the 1970s and I placed people in private care homes although I was a member of the Labour party. There is nothing unusual about placing people in private care homes. Sadly, the Government seem to believe that the only care available is private institutional care. That is why many social workers are damned angry about remarks such as those made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). Those remarks are inaccurate and do not reflect what has taken place in local social services arrangements for many years.
The Government's handling of community care suffers from the same constraints as their handling of the health service. They are obsessed with a private market model and, as a direct consequence, we are prevented from realising the enormous potential of community care. That


type of care has immense potential for many people with a variety of needs. Community care could enhance the basic human rights of millions of people.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I will not detain the House for long, because I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Care in the community was introduced with all-party support and with the support of professionals and voluntary and private sector providers. In the county of Devon, it has been a success story in its first year. It was embraced with enthusiasm by the county council, whose efforts have been given plaudits and whose work has been commended by the district auditor. In that first year, I believed that it would be a success story.
However, the revision of the funding formula for the second year has been an absolute disaster for Devon. It has taken no less than 20 per cent. of the overall transfer brought about by the change in formula. It is impossible to meet the demands in that county when all the plans, all the contracts and all the work being undertaken can be interrupted by such an extraordinarily huge loss of budget.
Many of those involved outside the county council have been hit. Some carers started up new operations, in some cases putting their life savings on the line to get a new facility up and running. They are finding that they are having to cut the level of client service that they had expected to be able to provide and, in some instances, the enterprise upon which they have embarked has been put in peril.
The county of Devon has a very large elderly population which is not only indigenous but comprises many people who choose to retire there. Since the introduction of care in the community, the demand for new residential places has risen by no less than 85 per cent. It is impossible for the social services department to meet its obligations under the care in the community legislation while suffering such a cut in its resources.
To put matters into perspective, I shall cite a few figures. Under the previous arrangements, 4.65 per cent. of the Department of Social Security's spending on residential care was spent in Devon. Under the new arrangements, Devon county council is being provided with only 2 per cent. of the national spend, which means that its share of the national spend has been more than halved.
I implore the Minister to review the situation. If the quotas are not to be reversed, could the Government at least reconsider the capping limits so that the elected authority can take its case to the people of the county so that they can decide whether they want such appalling cuts in the provision of care?

Dr. Robert Spink: Essex did rather well in terms of Government funding, which was increased this year by 22 per cent., or £32 million, for which we are grateful. In 1991, the amount spent on social services in Essex was £82.54 million; this year it is £174.89 million; and next year, it will be £192.35 million. Those represent generous real terms and cash increases.
I entirely accept that the social services department has had to take on new functions. By and large, it is doing its best to carry them out, although there have recently been

some hiccups, with which I shall deal in a moment. Essex's proportion of the total national resource has been very generous, and I thank the Minister for that.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made a thoughtful and helpful contribution, and its tone was excellent. I do not think that he accused the Government directly of underfunding the system, but he said that they had gone too far, too fast. He suggested that the changes could be slowed down and introduced over a 10-year period. If that is Liberal policy, what would he do about the current generation of elderly people who would be betrayed by such a time scale? They require help now, and might not be here to benefit from Liberal policy in 10 years' time.
Essex did very well under the new arrangements, but what did the Liberal and Labour parties in Essex do with all the extra money? They lost it though inadequate and incompetent budgeting, by following profligate socialist policies, by bad management and having too many managers, and by taking disastrous decisions. I hope to raise one instance in particular in an Adjournment debate very soon.
Budgeting in Essex gave rise to particular problems. Those involved in social services management there did not realise that there are 12 months in a year. The Audit Commission warned in its report of the lack of proper and sensible financial controls and budgeting in a few county councils, including Essex. It called for better budgeting to manage fluctuations in demand and to ensure that the financial consequences of past commitments were properly anticipated and allowed for.
The Audit Commission also called for county councils to make better use of independent sector provision, which is often more cost-effective, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) pointed out. Independent sector provision is often of a higher quality, but not necessarily so; there is some excellent state provision in my constituency, which I welcome.
The commission called for increasing flexibility and more prudent policies. Its report, entitled "Paying the Piper", identified potential savings of £500 million which could be made through better management control of local government pay bills, and would involve no cuts in front-line services.
Essex got its budgeting wrong, but that is not the whole story. Liberal and Labour control in the county meant a procession of eccentric, politically correct, madcap and profligate policies, which were followed not by mistake but on purpose, out of socialist dogma. I reviewed some of these incompetent and dogmatic socialist schemes in my Adjournment debate of 11 January. I do not have time to repeat them, but they are on the record.
Essex social services lost a total of £8.5 million. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that the money was thrown away on mad ideas. To its great and permanent shame, the county council took some cruel and insensitive action to cover its loony left incompetence. It cut care in the community provision and front-line service delivery to the old, the frail, the disabled and even children—the most vulnerable people in society whom the council should be protecting.
Those whose need was greatest had their services cruelly cut, while incompetent social services managers, who cannot even count the number of months in a year, have increased their already very high salaries this year.


Socialist and Liberal Democrat councillors are reinforcing their wasteful, profligate and dogmatic policies unchecked, and are not in the least humbled by their disasters.
To solve the problem, the council should use its £28 million reserves this year to reinstate the services that it so cruelly cut. It must also drop its madcap, profligate policies, and reduce management levels. It should also reduce management salaries by 6 per cent. in order to save money to protect vulnerable people in future, as I pointed out in my Adjournment debate. There should be no cuts in staff levels or staff wages in the front-line services in Essex, because those people are the deliverers of care such as home helps. They are good people.
One consequence of socialist dogma and incompetence in community care in Essex has been hospital bed blocking. Again, I alluded to it in my Adjournment debate on 11 January, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), for Rochford (Dr. Clark) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and many others.
I conclude at this point, because I know that the Minister is anxious to deal with the points that have been raised. However, I call on Essex county council to change its madcap policies, and to use its reserves of £28 million to make good the cruel cuts that it has imposed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for providing the opportunity for this debate, not least because, on this morning of Back Benchers' debates, he has abandoned his constituents and come south, referring to the constituents of hon. Members in the English counties and metropolitan areas. The hon. Gentleman entitled the debate "Care in the Community", a phrase that applies specifically to mental health. However, he dealt also with community care, and I shall respond on both counts.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the financing of mental health care, which is the domain of the health service and social services. This year, we have invested £2.5 billion in mental health care. Since 1979, there has been a 40 per cent. real terms increase in national health spending and a 171 per cent. real terms increase in social service spending.
I agree that we need to do more and ensure that mental health is moved up the list of priorities. Indeed, the White Paper "The Health of the Nation" made it one of five key areas of activity. That is why we introduced the mental illness specific grant, which is widely recognised as having initiated good practice locally.
There are more than a thousand new projects, and more than 100,000 people being helped by this scheme already. This year, £36 million of Government money is supporting spending of £50 million. Next year, we shall announce Government spending of £47.3 million supporting £66 million. That is a 30 per cent. increase, which is good news for spending on mental health. In addition, this year the Government are spending some £2.4 million through section 64 grants to voluntary organisations.
We are putting the money into medium secure beds, which are perceived to be the gap in provision. The Glancy report, which was mentioned last night, reported that there were no such beds by 1979. There are now 1,300 secure and interim secure beds available, and we are building on that achievement this year and next year. In addition, we are putting an extra £10 million into London services, as a result of our task forces and London Implementation Group surveys of the health service, which will be helpful.
It is a question of joint commissioning between health and social services, and working with the independent sector. No one in the House would disagree with the need to involve the independent sector as well. MIND has been mentioned, which is a provider as well as a lobbyist. Many others help us in this area, and it is an important area for those who are severely mentally ill and, of course, for those who suffer from dementia. As the population ages, more people will be frail of mind as well as of body, and will need social care as well as medical care. We need to ensure that there is provision in the community as well as provision in hospitals.
Getting clinical discharge right is important. That is why we issued the new guidance on that. The care programme approach is central to management in the community. We are putting a lot of emphasis on key work and key worker training. We shall be bringing forward the supervised discharge proposal, which has now been endorsed by the report of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, to the House in the very near future, together with other measures in that area.
I shall move on to the bulk of the debate, which in many ways has summed up the reality of community care. I acknowledge the opening words of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. Tributes have been paid to the start of community care, and that is right. The hon. Gentleman welcomed the policy, and that is right. I know of nobody who disagrees with the policy. There is perhaps some disagreement on emphasis in the practice and implementation of it, but the policy is right, and progress has been made.
Of course, some concerns about that progress have been rightly identified across the House, and we shall look at them. Hon. Members from all parties have also mentioned some poor performances. My hon. Friends who have raised those matters are fair in raising some of the motives behind some of the problems. There has been an element of dogma in some of the decision making in community care, which my hon. Friends have raised in speeches and interventions. It would be absurd to suggest that that problem does not exist. We must try to nail the dogma when it emerges and ensure that decisions are taken through good financial and care management throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also paid tribute to counsellors, and I echo that tribute. I would start by paying tribute to the directors of social services around the country and their teams, who have put care in the community into practice. Many councillors around the country of all parties are sincerely trying to make it work.
Again, my hon. Friends were right to point out those councillors who are trying to put obstacles in the way and use community care as an excuse to blame the


Government for all the ills of the nation and all the funding ills, which those councillors choose to highlight for any local newspaper headline of the day.

Mr. Kirkwood: indicated assent.

Mr. Bowis: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman clearly recognises that.
I shall pin down one or two funding issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He said that Lancashire and Devon had lost £14 million and £16 million respectively, the latter of which was also mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey). I do not know where those figures come from. Those counties have not lost any money at all. They have gained money. What the hon. Gentlemen are trying to say is that the counties have not gained as much as they would have liked, or, indeed, gained as much, in some cases, as they perhaps led themselves to expect.
Far from Lancashire losing £14 million, wherever that came from, it in fact, with the special transitional grant changes, received a reduction of £8 million. But, in the standard spending assessment change, implemented in the same year, it got £7 million more than it could have expected. We need to take that into account. Overall. from having £62 million to spend in 1991, it had £108 million in 1993–94 and that figure has risen to £126 million this year, which is a 15.4 per cent. increase on the previous year. It is due to have £142 million in the coming year. That represents a 66 per cent. increase compared with the national increase in England as a whole, and that is good news.

Mr. Hinchliffe: rose—

Mr. Bowis: I am sorry, but I want to answer the points that have been made.
The same goes for Devon, although it involves bigger figures. Essentially, it lost £9 million in the STG and gained £6 million in the SSA. That needs to be put into context. I know that there are one or two problems in Devon, not least because of the pressures of the elderly and mentally ill coming into the county. But in Devon, the figures have risen from £63 million to £108 million—the same pattern as in Lancashire—to £122 million, which is a 13.5 per cent. increase this year, and up to £136 million next year, representing a 77 per cent. increase over those five years.
I suggest that the hon. Member for North Devon goes back to Devon and says to the council that it receives generous funding, and asks it why it is planning to underspend. If it is under such pressure, why is it planning to spend 5 per cent. less than the SSA indicates it needs to spend, which is provided for in central and local funding? That does not make sense.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire requested something that I can easily fulfil, because it has already been announced. He rightly asked for careful consideration of community care, and he wanted everybody to take part in those discussions. I agree with that. As hon. Members from all parties have said, we are talking about a policy which was originally intended to be implemented over a decade. Of course, through all our monitoring, we have identified areas which need strengthening, such as housing, information, the involvement of users and carers, and better involvement of the independent sector.
We need to plan ahead. That is why, at the social services conference, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that we would be taking that issue forward and arranging a forum to look at how we should proceed. Indeed, when I met the local associations, the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, including Councillor Ann Peniket, who is one of the hon. Gentleman's party colleagues in local government, I said that the local authority associations would be involved with our officials in that forum. They were made that offer, and I know that they will take part, because they accepted it on the spot. We will be able to plan future development together.

Mr. Kirkwood: I want to push the Minister on that point. Is the forum a standing mechanism, which, over a period, will address common problems raised by Government, local authorities and other interested parties?

Mr. Bowis: It is to see how we develop, where the pressures are and how we should plan for the future.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it a standing mechanism?

Mr. Bowis: It is a forum that we have set up. It does not matter whether it is standing or sitting. It will enable co-operation and co-ordination.
It is right to draw attention to long-term health care, as we are doing, not least with the Leeds case. We have issued the draft discharge guidance. The Department has listened very carefully to the points made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, my hon. Friends and many others. We shall be refining that guidance, with which I think that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased.
Let me make it very clear that cradle-to-grave health care will remain. Most people's health care is carried out by GPs and primary health care. When that is necessary, it applies wherever one lives, in one's own home or in residential care. That will stay, and the same goes for the need for health care which involves hospitalisation or national health service cover in the residential sector. We must get the area between health and social services right, and we are working on it through the guidance and good practice of the work of the NHS executive.
I cannot answer all the points made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. He made many good points and one or two contentious points, which were answered by my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) also raised a number of important points. He exemplified Bromley as showing a good record of implementation, overcoming problems and managing with the funds available. Funding is generous. Funding for community care is not only special transitional grants. That element represented what had previously gone from the Department of Social Security through income support to residents in the independent sector. It was important to give stability to that sector and to the residents in it. That is why there was an 85 per cent. requirement for the opening years, and why we have the same requirement for next year alongside the hospital discharge agreement between health and social services.
The Audit Commission has produced two reports, one of which emphasises the £500 million to be saved through better staff cost management. The other report considers


better financial control to improve community care, better use of the independent sector and ensuring that the available money is spent on social services.
The policy is popular, and it is well resourced. It is not Treasury driven; it is user driven. It is run by local authorities, because they asked to run it. They must show that they can deliver and most of them are doing just that. A few are having difficulties—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.

Police Budget (Suffolk)

1 pm

Mr. Jamie Cann: Disquiet was expressed by several hon. Members in a debate in this place yesterday about the impact of police grants on the police services in various counties. My next door neighbour, the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), intervened in that debate. It is therefore useful today to examine a fairly representative shire county to consider the difficulties which have arisen as a result of the settlement that has been achieved.
Before I go any further, I must state that the debate is not about the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. I shall not go on about independent people being members of the police authorities. The issue is not about the principle of cash limits or the desirability, or otherwise, of using the formula. It is not about whether it is appropriate to devolve such matters to the chief constable.
The debate is not about politics in a party political sense. I represent the view of many Suffolk people of all political persuasions. The police authority in Suffolk is unanimous in its view, and that involves the magistrates, Conservatives, Liberals, Labour members and independents appointed by the Hone Secretary. They believe that there is a case to be answered.
In the Home Office press release 241/94, the Home Secretary stated:
Provision for the police service in England and Wales will increase by approximately 3 per cent. over 1994–95. This is fully sufficient to enable the present number of police officers to be maintained across the country, if chief officers, in consultation with police authorities, choose to do so.
I contend that that statement is incorrect when the figures are worked out.
Much of the problem relates to the formula. Everyone recognises that no formula could conceivably treat everyone fairly across the nation, because of the immense differences that exist. What is more, the formula is new and new formulae are even worse than older ones in that they have not been tried and there are bound to be teething problems.
Concern was expressed when the formula was first introduced. The Association of Chief Police Officers had 15 meetings about the formula. ACPO states:
the outcome of the current formula cannot be construed, in any terms, as a sound basis for the equitable distribution of resources to police forces in the future. The anomalies are clearly apparent even to the lay observer".
The representatives of police officers had no faith in the formula even when it was first introduced.
Suffolk has suffered particularly badly as a result of the formula. Suffolk is the second lowest spender per head of population on its police services in the whole of Britain. Some 23p per head per day is all that is spent on the police services in Suffolk. However, Suffolk finds itself with a cash increase of only £2,086,000, when it has extra costs which have been calculated as follows: between £2 million and £2.5 million extra is required for lump sum pensions; in respect of pay, from September 1994 full year consequences require an extra £0.4 million; in September 1995, the probable half-yearly pay increase will be between £300,000 and £500,000.
In addition, Suffolk has had to establish a contingency fund because it has been separated from the county council on which it used to rely. That will cost between


£500,000 and £700,000. If we include other factors, such as price increases, pay increases for civilian employees and the capital programme, it is estimated that Suffolk has a £3 million shortfall.
It is probably appropriate at this stage to quote the chief constable of Suffolk. He stated:
The major difficulty for the Constabulary arises from the considerable increase in funding requirements to deal with police pensions, particularly the payment of lump sums to which all ranks are entitled following their completion of appropriate pensionable service. The increase in Suffolk to make adequate provision for 1995–96 is in the region of £3 million and this is not atypical of other constabularies.
When this increase is matched to the requirement to absorb the impact of a pay award of 3 per cent. and the requirement to maintain adequate reserves following the creation of autonomous police authorities …the position is further aggravated. If this is then placed alongside a formula which has redistributed resources such that a small number are showing considerable gains while others are facing heavy losses, one can readily see the extent of our difficulties. Recent research has indicated that when comparing the costs of policing per person of population only one other force, West Mercia, shows a lower figure than that for Suffolk, with some forces (particularly the Metropolitan forces) spending over twice as much per person.
That is the problem that the police authority and the chief constable face in Suffolk because of the settlement announced yesterday.
How is the police authority going to cope? The chairman is not a politician but a magistrate. He was elected by the independent members of the authority who were appointed by the Home Secretary. I think that the Minister should listen carefully to what the police authority chairman has to say. He said:
The existing authority has made substantial savings during 1994–95—about £1 million. These have been achieved through a range of efficiency and value for money measures. But they have also meant holding vacant 43 police officer posts out of an establishment of 1,234.
Last week, the new authority reached the conclusion that another £3 million of savings would be needed if the maximum budget requirement for 1995–96 permitted under the capping regime is around £58 million.
About £1 million of these savings will come from the leaner structure being introduced by the Chief Constable and front some savings on overtime.
A further £1 million will come from reducing expenditure on a wide range of operational and administrative items. These include reducing overtime for police officers and civilians, reducing police officer training, reducing building maintenance"—
to emergency repairs only—
reducing transport costs and increasing charges.
These reductions will of course have an effect on the policing of Suffolk.
The third £1 million can only come from reducing the number of police officers (by a further 60) and civilian employees (by 20), by closing two police stations and deferring construction of a new station. The total number of police officer vacancies would rise to just over 100.
HM Inspector of Constabulary has regularly commended the efficiency and effectiveness of Suffolk Constabulary. Both would be severely affected by the scale of reductions in police officers now facing the Authority and which are totally at odds with the Home Secretary's statement.
It is projected that, in 1996–97, a further 40 jobs will be lost in the police force. That would make a total of 143 job losses in three years out of an establishment, agreed only two years ago with the Home Office, of 1,234. It does not take an Einstein to calculate that that is an 11 per cent. reduction in the operational police force.
The word "decimate" is about 2,500 years old. Nowadays, it is misused. People think that it means to destroy something. Originally, when a Roman legion did not perform correctly in battle, one man out of every 10 was chosen by lot to be executed. They were decimated. The Home Secretary would not wish to go down in history as the man who decimated the Suffolk police force, but he is in danger of so doing.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Judging by the way in which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) presented his case, the House could be forgiven for thinking that the police have had a poor deal in this year's settlement, but this year's settlement is very fair and very generous. It represents an increase on last year's settlement for the police throughout the whole of England and Wales of an average of more than 3 per cent., or nearly £200 million. It is a clear demonstration of the Government's continuing commitment to the police service in England and Wales. That is the national average across the country—a settlement of more than 3 per cent., when inflation is about 2.5 per cent., and police pay is increased by about 2.5 per cent.
Suffolk, however, has not had an increase of 3 per cent. Suffolk has had its fair share of resources, and the result is that the Suffolk police force will have available to it 4.7 per cent. more than last year. By any standards, can anyone seriously suggest that that is a cut in funding?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point: the word "decimate" is wildly overused. When Suffolk can spend 4.7 per cent. more on its police this year than it did last year, and bearing in mind the two crucial points that the general rate of inflation is 2.5 per cent. and that the bulk of police expenditure, which is on pay and salaries, is increasing by 2.5 per cent., there is no way in which that could be called a cut in funding or a decimation of the force.

Mr. Cann: Perhaps the Minister would like to check Hansard tomorrow, but I do not think that he will find that I used the word "cut" in any circumstances. I have tried to put it to the Minister that the Government, through the formula, have not taken account of expenditure which will be necessary.

Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman has not used the word "cut", of course I accept that, but he floated the word "decimate". Let us not argue about which word sounds worse. It will scare the people of Suffolk more to hear that a Suffolk Member of Parliament has talked about the possibility of the force being decimated when it has had a 4.7 per cent. increase in funding. I accept that the hon. Gentleman said that he might not have used the word "cut". There were certainly some colleagues last night who, when looking at the increase that their force had and comparing it with the increase that they would have liked it to have if money were no object, called the difference a cut.

Mr. Michael Lord: Obviously, as my hon. Friend knows, I represent Suffolk, and I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) that Suffolk should be properly policed. I have been struggling with the conundrum of how a 4.7 per cent. increase can be described as a cut. Although the hon.


Gentleman has not described it as such, newspapers in Suffolk have carried banner headlines stating that there will be severe cuts. Our chief constable and the committee are talking about removing the police launch and closing police stations. The general public are extremely worried about the situation, including the hon. Gentleman's points about fewer police on the beat.
I do not know whether I am posing an impossible question in the time available, but, as a Back-Bench Member with a Suffolk constituency, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to explain how the problem has arisen. Is it pensions? Is it the sparsity part of the formula? Why is the chief constable saying that things are so drastic, when the county has received a 4.7 per cent. increase?

Mr. Maclean: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's valid point, because that would require my going into the detailed budgeting of his police force and the calculations that his excellent chief constable has made. I do not have those figures, and it would not be appropriate for me to seek to challenge them even if I had them. All I can say is that my hon. Friend and our colleagues from Suffolk must put those same points to their own police authority. They should ask, "At a time of inflation of 2.5 per cent. and when the biggest item of police expenditure, police pay, is going up by 2.5 per cent., what is the difficulty of a force living within an increase of 4.7 per cent?"
I accept that, throughout the country, the police pensions element is a big contributor, but I do not think that it is any worse in Suffolk than in other areas. Difficulties are caused by the huge amount of money that must go on police pensions. In some forces which have had increases of 2 per cent. to 5 per cent. and which are not quite as generously funded as Suffolk, chief constables are juggling priorities and coming up with an à la carte menu of things that they might do to live within their increase. That is why newspapers can print banner headlines saying that 20 rural police stations may close or that 50 bobbies may be lost, as chief constables understandably and rightly float their ideas on how to keep their expenditure within that increase. I am sorry that I cannot be absolutely specific with my hon. Friend or with the hon. Member for Ipswich, but it would be wrong to go into the detail of the local police authority's budget and say, "Aha, that's what is wrong; that's what you must change." I cannot and would not do that.

Mr. Lord: I ask my hon. Friend a further question which perhaps falls within his responsibility. Is there a peculiar reason why the position this year is so different from that of former years? The situation in Suffolk is unusual.

Mr. Maclean: There is no peculiar reason why it is different this year. We have introduced a new formula to try to distribute all the extra money more fairly, and we have tried to base it on need. I should love our being able to justify a rural sparsity element—not that I am biased, of course, but colleagues have pressed me on that matter—but I should not do that out of political judgment. I must have proof that there is a statistically valid reason for a force receiving more money because its policing needs are greater because of its rural area. If that could be proved, I would happily do that. Nevertheless, the net result of the new formula is that Suffolk receives 4.7 per cent.
Let us suppose that we do not have the new formula, that the Home Secretary has acquired the extra 3 per cent. this year, and that we decide to have a flat-rate increase—no fancy formulae for trying to distribute according to need. Suffolk would receive 3 per cent. this year—everywhere would receive 3 per cent. Although that might remove colleagues' arguments such as, "Why did your lot get more than my lot?", Suffolk would not be as well off as it is now.
Without criticising or questioning any of our excellent chief constables, if, over the past 12 months, considering the financial climate, the general level of inflation and the police pay settlement of 2.5 per cent., any police force expected that the Government were going to find 5, 6 or even 8 per cent. as a standstill budget, that would be cloud cuckoo land economics.

Mr. Cann: It might be my fault, but the Minister does not seem to understand what I said. It is not so much the formula that is the problem. The chief constable and the police authority have said that they could probably cope if the problem were just the formula. The essential problem, and the answer to the query of the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), is that there are different things this year for Suffolk, just as there are throughout the land.
This is the first time that we have had an autonomous police authority. It does not have the contingency cover from the county council that it used to have. Therefore, it has to build its own general reserve for such purposes. It has problems with the payment of the lump sum element of pensions, which it did not have previously. That is the contention of the police authority, and that is why it is having to put up its estimate of expenditure to a figure way above what the Minister is talking about.

Mr. Maclean: Let us come straight to the point. First, let us deal with the question of reserves, which some people are misunderstanding. There is no statutory requirement on any authority to put money into reserves. I know that some people say that they have to take 2 per cent. to put into reserves, but there is no requirement to do so. It may be wise for an authority to do so if it can afford it—the Audit Commission recommends that that should take place—but if some forces are not capable of doing that, there is no compulsion on them.
Admittedly, every force and organisation would want reserves. My bank manager would like me to have some reserves, rather than an overdraft. All authorities want to have money in reserves in case they are faced with a police or education contingency. It is not right for an authority to say that a 4 or 5 per cent. increase is, in fact, a cut, because it has to put 2 per cent. in reserves.

Mr. Cann: Is the Minister really saying that he does not think that the Suffolk police authority needs to establish a reserve in case an event such as occurred at Brightlingsea happens in the area? Can I tell the authority that the Minister says not to worry, as the Government will bail it out at the end of year if it goes over budget because of unforeseen circumstances? I think not. Is it not the case that the Government have a contingency reserve of 4 per cent., or £7 billion out of £286 billion, in this financial year?

Mr. Maclean: I stand by what I said. It is sensible, prudent and desirable to set money into reserves, but if an authority has to decide between its priorities—some chiefs


may be floating threats to close some rural police stations or to reduce the number of officers—it cannot say that the Government have told it to put money into reserves. That is not the case. It is up to the authority to decide what it wants to do in the circumstances.
We recognise the difficulty caused for police budgets by the large and rapid growth in the police pensions bill, which is increasing exponentially each year. That is not unique to Suffolk.
The way in which we have dealt with pensions in this year's formula is the way the police service wanted it done. Nine per cent. of funding is allocated in relation to pension payments. That figure comes from police budget statistics produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. It is the proportion of national police funding which is spent on pensions. The decision to use this figure was taken following discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers, and local authority representatives.
As the police themselves were keen to ensure, however, this funding is not hypothecated. Those forces which need to spend more than 9 per cent. of their funding on pensions can do so, while those forces in the fortunate position of having lower than average pension commitments can spend the remainder of their pensions allocation on other policing services.
Having decided that 9 per cent. of the global pot—all the available funding—should be allocated to cover, nominally, pensions expenditure, a model was developed for the projection of pensions expenditure in each force area so that the 9 per cent. of funding could be allocated according to the relative need in each area.
The Government Actuary's department developed a pensions model which uses data on the age, gender, rank and length of service distribution of each force which were collected in August 1992 to make these forward projections of pensions expenditure. During the consultation period on the police funding settlement—we have similar consultation periods on local government finance—several points came to light in the pensions model which required revision.
The model had not fully taken into account the costs of pensions which were borne by a force other than the force actually making the payment. It had also inadvertently taken the higher costs of some London pensions into account twice. Suffolk benefited from the change we made there. These points were revised before the police grant report was laid before Parliament on 30 January. I am pleased to say that Suffolk gained a further £270,000 from the first change and another £240,000 from the second, making a total increase in the funding of more than £500,000.
We recognise the difficulty caused for police budgets by the large and rapid growth in the police pensions bill throughout the whole of England and Wales. The way in which we have dealt with it in this year's formula is the way the police service itself wanted it done. I have already promised that we will look very carefully at this for 1996–97 in conjunction with ACPO.
The hon. Member for Ipswich said that ACPO had 15 meetings before criticising the formula. It is interesting that, after 15 meetings, its ultimate conclusion was that it did not like the end product. That shows the difficulty of constructing a formula that pleases everyone. Nevertheless, the police service generally does not want

the former allocated system, which I intended to describe last week as negotiation by megaphone. Those forces which shouted the loudest for bobbies got them, while those which did not shout—irrespective of need—did not. Derbyshire is a classic example. In the early 1980s, Derbyshire did not ask for bobbies. It did not get them and it is now suffering terrible consequences. That method could not continue.
The Government and the police service wanted a formula. The formula is not for my benefit of for the Government's benefit; it is for the benefit of the police service. This year, there is extra money for the police service above the level of inflation—Suffolk receives 4.7 per cent.—so the formula will not save the Treasury money. It is intended to try to allocate the extra resources fairly. I shall be delighted to take representations from all colleagues and from the police service on how to refine and improve the formula. It may be able to take into account factors which, some people allege, are not taken into account at present.
Rural sparsity is one of those factors. I recognise—coming, as I do, from Cumbria, a county that is even more rural than Suffolk—the particular difficulties faced by forces with sparse populations. We have to look again at whether the formula can more adequately reflect these difficulties. It is a matter not of independent or political will but of thorough work on the facts and figures to establish the true picture.
I know that the hon. Member for Ipswich did not raise this matter, and I did not have a chance to respond to it last night, but some Opposition Members have alleged that we made a £30 million error in the budget. That is absolute nonsense. The figure came in a report in The Guardian, and people who believe what they read in The Guardian should not be surprised if it gets things absolutely wrong. There is no truth in that at all. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will draw that fact to the attention of the shadow Home Secretary, as I did not manage to respond to that point last night.
I shall conclude by referring to the successes of Suffolk. While we are talking about police funding—I well understand that the force would like more money, although it has, in the circumstances, come out well in comparison with the rest of the country with 4.7 per cent.—we must not forget that Suffolk has been tremendously successful as far as the police are concerned. The police in Suffolk are doing a good job.
To set the funding in context, we must look at the successes of last year. Our statistics show that there was a 6 per cent. drop in recorded offences in Suffolk for the 12 months ending in June 1994. Within that figure, robbery offences dropped by 23 per cent., and there was a 15 per cent. drop in vehicle offences. Burglaries—which worry many of the constituents of the hon. Member for Ipswich and my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord)—dropped by 12 per cent.
The report by Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary on the Suffolk force for 1994 described it as maintaining one of the highest detection rates for recorded crime in the country. I believe that the settlement that Suffolk is getting under the formula will ensure that there will be no change in that tremendous success rate and that its efficiency will not be affected at all.

Mr. Cann: Is not the point that everybody concerned with that great success story is saying that the


Government are putting that in jeopardy in the coming year because of the settlement? It is not a success story that the number of police officers on the beat in Suffolk was reduced by 43 last year.

Mr. Maclean: Since the Government came into office, Suffolk has had an extra 132 police officers approved in its establishment.
I shall not be responsible on 1 April for deciding the number of police officers that Suffolk can have or recruit. We shall no longer play a role in fixing the establishment. However, despite the excellent success of Suffolk—I understand that it is now structuring—it could do a little more to release more bobbies for the beat. It could continue the civilianisation programme because Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary reports that, at the end of 1993, some 50 police officers were doing jobs that could have been done by civilians.
Throughout England and Wales, we have seen the restructuring and thinning out of senior and middle management ranks. Hundreds of chief superintendents and inspectors have gone, and we have more constables instead. In the first 10 months of 1994, England and Wales had 600 more bobbies on the beat—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Minister's time is up.

Wyre Piddle Bypass

Mr. Peter Luff: Do you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know the first two verses of one of my favourite poems?
Yes. I remember Adlestrop—
The name, because one afternoon
Of heat the express-train drew up there
Unwontedly. It was late June.
The steam hissed. Someone cleared his throat.
No one left and no one came
On the bare platform. What I saw
Was Adlestrop—only the name.
Edward Thomas drew up at Adlestrop on the line from Oxford to Worcester, on a journey on the "Old Worse and Worse", or Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway to give it its more accurate name. Had he continued his journey just a few more miles, one of his most evocative contributions to poetry could have been very different:
Yes. I remember Wyre Piddle—the name …
Well, actually, it could not. The Great Western Railway, which in 1917 owned the "Old Worse and Worse", could not come to terms with the village's name, preferring the more anodyne "Wyre Halt". Sadly, little sign of Adlestrop now remains, and of Wyre Halt no trace is visible. But Wyre Piddle is as famous as Adlestrop, although probably for the wrong reasons. It is a case of once heard, never forgotten.
Sometimes, embarrassing or unfortunate names are shed by those to whom they belong. One thinks of Marion Morrison, better known as John Wayne. Whoever heard of a cowboy called Marion? Would Big Daddy, the all-in wrestler, have been taken quite as seriously had he been loyal to his given name—Shirley Crabtree? Would Elton John have been the phenomenon that he was and remains as just plain old Reg Dwight?
Wyre Piddle is proud of its name. Indeed, it has given the village a real advantage here in the House and at the Department of Transport as successive hon. Members representing the village, including my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), have lobbied for its long-overdue bypass.
Its name is celebrated in one local poem, attributed by some to one of my illustrious predecessors, Sir Gerald Nabarro:
Upton Snodsbury, Tibberton and Crowle
Wyre Piddle, North Piddle and Piddle-in-the-hole".
The name of Piddle-in-the-hole is no more, although I believe that land there was once farmed by the grandfather of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education.
North Piddle lies on no main road and need not detain us today, but a little further south, on the same Piddle Brook, lies Wyre Piddle itself. Prehistoric men buried their dead here. It features in the Domesday book as the rather more discreet Wyre Pidele. It is not a large village, but neither is it small, with 386 electors. Its perfect church, with its early Norman chancel arch, is situated on a bank above the Avon, flowing from Stratford to its junction with the Severn.
It is little wonder that the situation has inspired artists because the view across to Bredon hill, itself the subject of poetry by A.E. Housman, is captivating. Writing in 1949, L.T.C. Rolt, in his book "Worcestershire", said:
Just below the village of Wyre Piddle is Wyre Lock with its curious diamond-shaped chamber, and here again the natural scene and human handiwork conspire together to reward the river traveller with a sight that no lover of England can easily forget. Over the outspread lock-beams a silver reach curves away between level water meadows, bordered by ranks of willow, which lead the eye towards the middle distance where, in perfect contrast to this level landscape, the glorious fourteenth century tower of Pershore soars upward, a benediction in stone. The scene is reminiscent of the view of Salisbury from another Avon".
Although the village still has several black and white houses, typical of Worcestershire, many are crumbling from vibrations generated by heavy traffic in the narrow main road. Structural problems are only one of the many reasons for the urgent construction of a road that will bring only benefit to my constituents and motorists alike.
The construction of a bypass will affect few businesses. We have an excellent pub in the village, the Anchor, situated between the main road and the Avon. It is a real local, but those coming from further afield to sample its charms—and its fine beer—will still be able to gain access from both directions, thanks to the design and route of the proposed new road. I know that one garage will lose passing trade, but I understand that the owner accepts that, and local authorities are attempting to minimise the impact.
The bypass will affect not just Wyre Piddle. We must not forget the plucky villagers of Upper Moor. That hamlet, with just 36 electors, is situated on the Evesham side of Wyre Piddle. Original plans for the bypass did not include Upper Moor. I am delighted that the lobbying skills of the villagers, who count among their number a literary agent and a BBC radio presenter, have led the county council to the wise conclusion that the bypass should relieve them, too. That was a wise decision by the county council, not just for the sake of my constituents but for the sake of all road users. The road at that point is particularly hazardous because a long bend conceals the houses of Upper Moor. A fatal accident occurred there recently and there would be many more if the bypass terminated between there and Wyre Piddle. Upper Moor residents feel that they are often overlooked. It is a pleasure to ensure that they are not overlooked in today's debate.
The road through Wyre Piddle is the old B4084, recently reclassified as the A4538. It forms part of the so-called Pershore corridor, and is a crucial link between the M5 at junction 6, north Worcester and Evesham. There it connects with the A435, currently the subject of a major improvement—the Norton Lenchwick bypass—by the Department of Transport, linking up to Redditch and junction 3 of the M42, and the A46 to Stratford, Warwick, the M40, Coventry and the M6.
Small additional works will be needed in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South just outside Evesham, at the so-called "Squires Link" to the A435 and the Evesham bypass when the Wyre Piddle bypass is built.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Does my hon. Friend recall that when
Doctor Foster went to Gloucester
He stepped in a piddle right up to his middle"?

The word that he has cleverly played on has now become "puddle".
My hon. Friend is right to say that we need a bypass around Wyre Piddle. As he said, I first raised this subject 20 years ago. Does he accept that it is particularly necessary for my constituency because of the pressure that it will take off traffic going through Pershore? Will he, at some point in his speech, refer to the fact that there is a pecking order for bypasses in our county and that Broadway has now reached the top of the pecking order? That should not be prejudiced and although the need for a Wyre Piddle bypass must be accepted, we must first go ahead with the Broadway bypass.

Mr. Luff: I am delighted to endorse what my hon. Friend said. I hope to return to precisely those points later in my speech.
The county council said in its July 1994 bid for transport supplementary grant:
The present road network includes two broadly parallel routes between Worcester and Evesham, namely A44 and A4538 (formerly B4084). For particular journeys one route is more attractive than the other, but overall traffic volumes are similar on the two routes.
In a public consultation exercise in early 1992, which examined the traffic problems and strategy for the Pershore corridor as a whole, various options for relieving traffic congestion in that part of Worcestershire were floated. It is fair to say that some of those options aroused considerable public anger. For example, concern focused on a proposal to build viaducts and bridges across the meadows and the Avon to relieve traffic problems in Pershore and Wyre Piddle.
That consultation produced a clear consensus that the best strategy was to stick with the long-established plans to bypass Wyre Piddle to the north and build a short western bypass, which would enable Pershore's problems to be addressed, at least in part. This debate is about the northern, and more substantial, road but I will return to the western route.
In March 1994, a further public consultation was held on possible routes for the northern road. Again, it produced a clear consensus, subsequently endorsed by Hereford and Worcester county council.
Not surprisingly, local people have had their suspicions about the county council's real intentions. The road has been discussed for a long time and need for it is growing daily. The earliest date on which construction can realistically begin is early 1997, but the approach adopted by the county has commanded my complete confidence, and I pay tribute to the work done by Dr. Martin Heyes, whom I still think of as the county engineer but who now rejoices in the title, "Director of Environmental Services". I pay tribute to his staff—of course, it is easy for me to do so when they have come out in support of the route that my constituents and I favour. In its document produced t o support the March 1994 consultation, the county summed up the situation. It said:
The existing route is of sub-standard width and poor alignment and falls short of standards required to carry the future predicted traffic on the A4538.
The centre of Wyre Piddle is a conservation area and there is a worsening environmental situation in an otherwise very pleasant village, caused particularly by heavy vehicles and growing congestion. To the east, the hamlet of Upper Moor suffers similarly with houses which front the road enduring noise and vibration. Direct access on to the A4538 is at times difficult and dangerous for those houses which abut the carriageway.


That is a slightly dry way of putting it, to say the least. The existing main road through Wyre Piddle carries on average 12,850 vehicles a day. The predicted flows in the bypass design year of 2013 are between 17,250 and 14,750 vehicles on the bypass, with another 5,000 vehicles using the village itself. Such traffic is simply unsustainable without the bypass.
At the village war memorial the road narrows and turns towards the village hall. The bypass committee says that the road is already carrying up to 30 large refuse lorries per hour to the major landfill site to the north. It will not be long before two trucks meet head on or a car finds that there is not enough room to pass without mounting the pavement and killing a pedestrian. There is a serious accident just waiting to happen.
If an accident does not occur in the village itself, it will occur at one of the two railway bridges at either end of the village or in Upper Moor as a resident's car seeks to join the main road and is hit by a speeding driver, or a driver, despairing of ever getting on to the main road at the war memorial, takes a risk that does not pay off.
The county council has kindly provided me with the 10-year accident record for Wyre Piddle and Upper Moor. The words "failed to negotiate bend" feature more than once. In this 10-year period there have been 33 accidents, 12 of them serious, 61 vehicles have been involved and there have been 49 casualties. Mercifully, there has been only one fatality—at Upper Moor when a 16-year-old pedestrian was knocked down by a car in December 1993.
Every month that the bypass is delayed we are putting at risk the lives of more pedestrians, residents and other drivers. Leaving to one side the environmental issues, the benefits to Pershore and the need to cope with traffic to and from the newly widened M5, there is an overwhelming case for the road on safety grounds alone.
The road is increasingly dangerous not just because of volume but because of speed of traffic. The 30 mph limit through Wyre Piddle is widely flouted. The county council is in dialogue with the parish council and its chairman, Mr. Gary Robinson. The parish council has enthusiastically pushed the case for the road for more years than any of us care to remember. It knows that traffic calming and management measures are not a solution, but just a temporary palliative.
I am grateful to the Minster's officials for the help that I have received from them in explaining to the parish council the possibilities for traffic calming and speed limit enforcement. I hope that in the years until the new road is built some new measures can be introduced, but they will never be a substitute for the northern Wyre Piddle bypass.
The Minister will have heard me mention the railway through Wyre Piddle on a number of occasions. Engineered by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, it still offers a fine service to Oxford and London from the Worcester and Pershore stations in my constituency, which also serve the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South, and from Evesham, which is just along the line. Early morning InterCity 125s act as alarm clocks for residents of Wyre Piddle whose homes are close to the line. Wyre Halt may have closed, but the Pershore and Evesham stations are close by—at least if one has access to a car.
Investment in new rolling stock has recently transformed the line. The better, more frequent services have resulted in a large increase in passenger traffic, sufficient to ensure that, for the first time in living memory, the railway covers its operating costs. I should like to see still more investment in the line, even though it would probably mean the end of the fine semaphore signals at Worcester Shrub Hill. New signalling and a few passing loops, well short of full redualling of that now single-track line, could increase volumes substantially.
Is that an alternative to the northern Wyre Piddle bypass? I think not. Traffic is being generated from the M5, from Evesham and the Cotswolds, from the landfill site and from the proposed new chicken farm on Throckmorton airfield—a disgraceful decision, but that is another story; perhaps for another Adjournment debate. More money is needed for the railway and it would bring real benefits. It would bring more mobility to my constituents who do not have cars—and there are many of them—but I fear that investing in the railway would have only a very slight effect on traffic volumes in Wyre Piddle.
We must also set the Wyre Piddle bypass in the context of the county's wider transport priorities—as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South has asked me to do—and that will also give me a chance to thank the Minister for a wise decision by his Department.
The Worcester western bypass was, until the announcement before Christmas by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the county's top priority. The confirmation that the road will begin to be built around the turn of the year, subject to the outcome of a public inquiry, has brought enormous relief to my constituents in Worcester. The attractive shopping centre of St. Johns will be able to breathe again as all the M5 to Hereford traffic moves to the new road. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he listened to the bipartisan pleas about that road.
The Broadway bypass on the A44 was the other major scheme for which the county bid unsuccessfully last year. It now moves to the top of the priority list, closely followed by the Bordesley bypass on the A441 and Wyre Piddle.
However, we must not lose sight of the Wyre Piddle western bypass. Although the northern road will help enormously, I cannot let this opportunity pass without reminding the Minister that we regard the western road, which I have discussed with him in the past, as being of strategic significance too. The county's transport supplementary grant bid last year stated:
the benefits to the village will not be maximised until the Wyre Piddle Western by-pass is also constructed.
That road would form a link between the B4083 from Pershore to the A4538 itself. It would maximise the benefit of the Wyre Piddle northern road to Pershore and bring local benefits. Those local benefits have led the Department to reject even supplementary credit approvals for the road, and that in turn has led to the loss of a generous private sector contribution to the cost of the road. I hope that I can persuade the Minister to reflect again on the western road, and sanction its construction before too long.
The Wyre Piddle bypass has never been closer to completion. Compulsory purchase orders could be made this autumn. Assuming a public inquiry is necessary—I believe it may not be—there is no reason why a decision


could not be made by the Secretary of State on the planning issues next October, with tenders requested at about Christmas 1996. Construction could then begin in January or February 1997.
It would be the culmination of a campaign, probably spanning decades, begun by Sir Gerald Nabarro, conducted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South and continued energetically by my predecessor, Lord Walker.
Wyre Piddle is moving up everyone's priority list, as today's debate shows, but just at our moment of victory, is the cup to be dashed from our lips? The tide seems to be turning against new road building. Will that tide sweep away the Wyre Piddle bypass and hundreds of equally important schemes up and down the country?
The first enemy of such schemes seems to be the Royal Commission on environmental pollution and its report on transport and the environment which was published on 26 October last year. Its radical proposals were seen as one of the most comprehensive attacks on road building ever made by any establishment body. Its press release made the point time and again:
the report identifies as major adverse effects of the present transport system … the impact of road building.
a road building programme which, although spending more money that ever before, would not stop congestion getting worse.
Resources should be switched from road-building to public transport.
A continuing spiral of further road building leading to further traffic growth would not be sustainable.
So it goes on. Alarm bells began to ring in Wyre Piddle and in similar villages and communities around the country, but worse was to come.
Shortly before Christmas, a new acronym struck further fear into the residents of Wyre Piddle. This time it was SACTRA—the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment. Published with the apparent endorsement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, its central conclusion was probably
that it is possible for the provision of extra road capacity to induce extra traffic".
At that point I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seeking reassurances that the Government's guarded welcome for the report did not spell trouble for Wyre Piddle. It is important to record another of SACTRA's conclusions:
there is still need to consider additions to road capacity where they are environmentally and economically justified.
The essence of the case that I have made today is that the Wyre Piddle bypass will not generate new traffic and that it is environmentally and economically justified.
I recognise that the concerns about the rising tide of opposition to new road building will be echoed up and down the country. That is one of the reasons why I have sought this debate today and why I am so grateful that it has been granted.
Wyre Piddle may bring a smile to the lips, but its problems are very real. They stand as examples of the problems of many rural communities that are apprehensive that they may have missed the opportunity of the bypass for which they, like Wyre Piddle and Upper Moor, have been working and campaigning for so long. This debate gives the Minister an opportunity to reassure not just Wyre Piddle, but many other communities too.
My hon. Friend the Minster has to say two things today to reassure my constituents—and I hope those of many other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South in relation to the Broadway bypass. First, he should confirm that recent apparent changes in the Government's policy on road building have not changed the case for the Wyre Piddle bypass in any respect, and that the Wyre Piddle bypass and others like it will not generate new traffic, but rather relieve intolerable situations for the communities through which the traffic currently passes.
Secondly, I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that the Wyre Piddle northern bypass remains eligible for transport supplementary grant. Its £4 million cost is not large compared with the cost of major motorway schemes, but the benefits that it will bring will be enormous. I hope that the Minister will recognise that county councils have quite a backlog of such schemes, which are widely supported by the public.
As massive spending on motorways seems set to be scaled down, perhaps the Minister can tell me that not all the money saved will go back to the Chief Secretary but that some of it will go to small schemes such as the Wyre Piddle bypass. In other words, far from threatening Wyre Piddle, perhaps SACTRA and the rest will advance such schemes.
This debate has provided an opportunity for the Government to reassure many thousands of our fellow citizens who are crying out for bypasses that they need not despair: that the Government are still on their side. I hope that my hon. Friend will seize it when he replies.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) will understand that, by the very nature of these debates, the more he talks, the less I am able to answer. If I cannot cover all his points in the time available, I shall write to him about them.
My hon. Friend spoke of Wyre Piddle moving up the national agenda. That, like the phrase about the Minister being a part-time dentist, struck me as the sort of remark that will go down in history as one of the least apt ever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester has pursued this bypass assiduously. He came to see me last October to discuss chiefly the Worcester western bypass but he also mentioned the virtues of this scheme. I took careful note of what he had to say, as I have on this occasion.
I welcome my hon. Friend's explanation of the value of the scheme. He ably demonstrated that it is one of those bypass projects that it is universally accepted we should undertake.
My hon. Friend asked whether the recent royal commission or SACTRA reports would impinge on the scheme. There are of course many ways of dealing with the problems of congestion and pollution on our roads. There is much to be said for integrating transport solutions, centred on the provision of good public transport as well as the use of the private car. There may be alternatives to transporting goods by road—rail and water, where appropriate. But there will always remain traffic problems of this sort, which can be dealt with only by means of a bypass.
A cursory look at the map will show why the Wyre Piddle proposition is perfectly robust. I should like to say a word about the transport supplementary grant system


first, however. It is the Department's main grant towards the cost of capital expenditure on local authority roads. Every July, local highway authorities make their bids for this capital expenditure for the following year. The Secretary of State then considers those plans and makes his announcement in December.
In determining how much of an authority's proposed expenditure to accept, the Secretary of State has to consider the extent to which the roads that would benefit are of more than local importance, and the extent to which people living or working in an authority's area would be relieved of the effects of heavy through traffic.
There is no upper financial limit for TSG, but the scope for funding more than a few very large schemes is restricted by the availability of resources and the need for a balanced national distribution. Grant is not paid for schemes that cost less, individually, than £2 million. These will be included in programmes of work funded with block allocations of credit approvals, covering all forms of transport infrastructure.
Schemes are not usually accepted for TSG until the settlement for the year in which their main works contract is due to start. Neither is TSG usually intended to be paid in support of expenditure on design costs, land acquisition or advanced works. For large schemes of great strategic importance with particularly high expenditure in advance of their main works, however, the Department has the option of providing support by means of credit approval.
It is obviously not possible to pay all the TSG for which local authorities bid. Whether a scheme is accepted in a particular year depends on the extent to which it would help to meet the Secretary of State's objectives, on its economic and environmental benefits, and on its merits compared with those of all the other schemes proposed for acceptance by the 108 highway authorities in the same settlement.
Authorities do not receive a fixed share of TSG each year and there is no such thing as a minimum amount that can be guaranteed. However, contractual commitments on previously accepted schemes have a first call—provided any cost increases have been justified and satisfactory progress has been maintained.
I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that the Wyre Piddle scheme is eligible for TSG. As he amply demonstrated, it would bring much needed relief to a community suffering from the unwelcome impact of traffic that is not, in the main, locally generated. I shall not, however, be able to take a fully informed view before the county council submits a detailed bid for TSG. Despite the now familiar anti-road hysteria, often stoked up by people who appear to have little else to contribute, I am well aware that many communities are only too glad to have a bypass to make their lives safer and more peaceful.
I should give my hon. Friend some idea of the difficulties that we face. This year, we received bids from highway authorities for TSG for about 80 eligible major schemes—seven times more than we could afford. As ever, many good candidates have had to be left out, and it was impossible to avoid disappointing several highway authorities.
In each of the past three years, we have made it clear in the annual guidance that we issue to local authorities that in view of the scarcity of public resources it would

be exceptional for any authority to have more than one new major scheme accepted for TSG in a single settlement. That is why, in a year when only 25 new schemes succeeded in getting TSG, I was pleased that we could give approval for the Worcester western bypass scheme, the county's top priority.
I come next to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer). It is correct that one of the important considerations that we shall have to take into account will be the county council's priorities in respect of TSG approvals. I note what my hon. Friend said about Broadway. I was grateful to him for acknowledging, in that context, that Wyre Piddle may not be top of the county's list. That is, however, a matter for the county itself.

Mr. Luff: May I urge my hon. Friend to negotiate robustly with the Treasury this time around? If there is to be a reduction in motorway building, perhaps a few more bids from county councils will succeed instead.

Mr. Norris: I have promised my hon. Friend that, in my negotiations with the Treasury, Wyre Piddle will never be far from my mind. No doubt he will be able to make his own representations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in due course.
Another factor that my hon. Friend should bear in mind is the forecast date for the start of construction. I am advised that planning permission has not yet been secured for the scheme, and the necessary draft orders under the Highways Act have not yet been published. To consider the scheme for TSG in 1996–97 we would have to be confident that a start to construction in that year was likely. The county council will need to make good progress on the statutory procedures if that goal is to be achieved.
As my hon. Friend knows, we carefully considered the case for grant for the western bypass, but we concluded that it was not a road of more than local importance and hence did not qualify. The Department does not support expenditure on local roads generally; they are the responsibility of local highway authorities, which receive funding from the Department of the Environment for the upkeep of such roads. Hereford and Worcester county council may, if it wants to, use some of the resources that we allocate for minor works under the local transport capital settlement for the western bypass, but the money is unlikely to be sufficient for the purpose.
I quite understand the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed. I hope that he will appreciate that his representations have been listened to sympathetically and have borne fruit. We are prepared to consider the scheme for transport supplementary grant. It meets our criteria, and nothing in recent reports has rendered it less likely to be eligible. There are real questions about the extent to which bids for grant exceed the grants that are available. Indeed, it was ever thus. Financing is, therefore, by no means automatic. Approvals are generally granted only in the year in which the scheme is likely to start. There is some further work to be done in that regard in relation to the scheme.
I hope that my reply has been helpful to my hon. Friend. Given the crucial role of the county council in determining what should be its priorities for expenditure, it might be useful if my hon. Friends the Members for


Worcester and for Worcestershire, South and their constituents direct their principal concerns to the county council. It is the council which—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Lockerbie

2 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My concerns about Lockerbie have been set out in Adjournment debates, foreign affairs debates and endless parliamentary questions over six years, most recently on 13 December in the Scottish Grand Committee at column 40, so I invite the Foreign Secretary to address the following questions, of which the Foreign Office has had 26 hours' notice.
Did the Scottish police request interviews with Ghadanfar and Dalkoumani? If not, why not? If so, were they denied access to the two men? Will the British Government object if Dalkoumani is released later this year? Did the British authorities ever interview Marwan Khreesat, briefly detained and then released in Neuss, Germany?
Considering two Libyans have been indicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, would the Foreign Secretary acknowledge contrary circumstantial evidence set out in recent days by Alan Francovitch, Con Coughlin and John Arlidge, and in their seminal, if derided, book "Trail of the Octopus" by Don Goddard and Lester Coleman? In particular, is the Foreign Secretary at ease, in the light of the "File on Four" programme, in respect of the pivotal witness, Toni Gauci, clothing shopkeeper from Malta?
If the Foreign Secretary is so sure about the Malta connection, how does he explain that Air Malta won an out-of-court settlement against Granada and The Independent, neither of which could substantiate its story of Maltese involvement?
Is the Foreign Secretary any more at ease in respect of another crucial witness, Edwin Bollier? Did he not sign a statement to the effect that his timing device had been sold only to the Libyans? But does not interrogation of Bollier's Stasi control reveal that that was a lie, as he had sold the same device to the Stasi?
What is the Foreign Secretary's assessment of the report of the air intelligence unit of the United States air force that Ali Akbar Motashemi paid the Al Abas and Abu Nidal groups $10 million in cash and gold to bomb Pan Am flight 103, in retaliation for the US "shoot-down" of the Iranian airbus?
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Crown Office received crucial American intelligence implicating Libya from Mr. Vincent Cannistraro of the CIA, who, by his own admission in the mid-1980s, ran a programme at the US National Security Council designed to destabilise and topple the regime of Colonel Gaddafi, and that one of the methods used in the campaign was the spreading of disinformation about Libya?
How can seemingly eternal United Nations sanctions against Libya be justified? Is the Foreign Secretary sure that the Crown Office "certainties" are not constructed on the quicksand of CIA disinformation?
How much reliance does the Crown Office put on the so-called testimony of Abdu Maged Jiacha, who worked at Luqa airport, who has received a $4 million reward and a new identity, and the benefits of the US federal witness protection programme? Apart from anything else, he seems to have quarrelled with the one of the two accused Libyans over a girl. That is about the level of it.
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that after Lockerbie all the Drug Enforcement Agency chiefs in Europe were ordered to Washington, and told that there were DEA agents and a drug courier on flight 103, and that all DEA officers received a cable informing all agents that they were in no circumstances to talk to anyone about the DEA people on that plane, including Khalid Jaafar?
Were drugs found among the debris near Lockerbie, and were Americans involved in concealing the discovery of drugs?
Hansard records in column 522 on 21 December 1988 that at 8.30 pm I intervened on the suject of the crash. My concerns about Lockerbie became acute when a West Lothian police officer—a friend of mine and a constituent—observed to me on new year's eve, 1988 that he did not know how so many Americans could be on such a gruesome scene messing around with the evidence.
Why has the Crown Office not talked properly to Dr. David Fieldhouse, the distinguished Bradford police surgeon, especially to correlate his body count with its count?
Will the Foreign Secretary explain why the German authorities did not join their US and UK colleagues in indicting the two Libyans for a crime committed on German soil, at the Rhein-Main airport, where by any account the bomb went on board?
Is it not the case that, shortly after the Anglo-American indictment, the German public prosecutor, Volke Rath, was quoted as stating that the Federal Republic of Germany had declined to join the US and UK indictment on the ground, as he put it, "of lack of evidence"?
In the investigation of a crime, the police in Scotland act, and must act, on the directions and instructions of the procurator fiscal and the Crown Office. Have the Crown Office and the procurator fiscal given the police directions or instructions to investigate recent allegations of Iranian and Syrian involvement in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103? Again, if not, why not?
In deciding whether charges should be brought and in preparing a case for trial, it is the duty of the prosecuting authorities in Scotland to consider and investigate evidence which tends to exculpate a suspect or an accused as well as evidence which tends to incriminate the suspect. Have the prosecuting authorities complied with that duty in the case of the two Libyan suspects, and are they currently complying?
A petition charging named individuals with the Lockerbie bombing having been presented to the sheriff of Dumfries, presumably on evidence regarded by the Lord Advocate as sufficient at the time to justify that step, and arrest warrants having been granted, do the prosecuting authorities in Scotland regard their investigating functions as being at an end?
Should they not, for example, seek to interview officials of the US embassy in Nicosia who were there in 1988 to determine what they knew of the events leading up to the Lockerbie disaster? In particular, should they not seek to interview the 1988 CIA station chief and the DEA country attaché, both now retired from Government service?
Have the Crown Office and the Scottish police investigated the possibility that the terrorists responsible took advantage of an American law enforcement operation to smuggle the bomb aboard flight 103?
Do the prosecuting authorities regard themselves as being free now to close their eyes to any new leads and decline to investigate any potential evidence which go counter to the allegations narrated in the petition or which appear to cast doubt thereon?
Do the prosecuting authorities really assert that the sole responsibility for investigating any such evidence rests on those entrusted with the task of representing the relatives if and when a trial takes place?
Ending with the relatives, six long years later, they want to know exactly why US personnel were withdrawn from flight 103, and exactly what US Government officials knew which was not made available to the youngsters going to their death.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) because, as he said, he gave notice to my office of his line of questioning. He gave me plenty of time, but he has asked many detailed questions. If there are gaps between his questions and the fullness of my answers, I shall write to him to fill the gaps. I shall certainly deal with the main points that he raised.
I thought that it was right to reply to the debate myself for three reasons: first, because of my respect for the hon. Gentleman and for his integrity in this and other matters; secondly, because of the enormity of the crime at Lockerbie and the suffering which it caused and is causing; thirdly, because I wish to deal plainly and lay to rest certain suspicions and accusations which have arisen not so much from the hon. Gentleman's speech as from what he has copiously written in newspapers.
The Lockerbie investigation has been the most extensive ever carried out into one crime in Britain. On the basis of that criminal investigation and the vast amount of evidence uncovered, my noble and learned Friend the then Lord Advocate sought and was granted warrants for the arrest of two Libyan nationals accused of having carried out the bombing.
I must stress the total independence from Government of the investigation of the Lord Advocate in his responsibility for criminal prosecutions. Neither he nor his predecessor would have brooked any attempt to influence them in exercising their independent judgment. It is not the job of Ministers or the Foreign Office to decide who should be prosecuted for a crime. It is not the job of Ministers or the Foreign Office to pronounce opinions as to who is guilty. There is no place in the matter for diplomatic or political considerations, and we have not at any time allowed such considerations any place in our actions.
Neither the Foreign Office nor any agency for which I am responsible has attempted to steer the Lockerbie investigation or to shield any individual or state who may have been responsible. There is no hidden political influence behind the investigation, and there has been no censorship by the Foreign Office. All significant information relevant to Lockerbie obtained by the intelligence agencies—or anyone else, to my


knowledge—is invariably and as a matter of course provided to those who are responsible for the investigation. It is for the prosecuting authorities and, ultimately, we hope, for the courts, not the Government, to weigh the evidence; so when the hon. Gentleman asks whether I am at ease with that, or whether I am satisfied with that, those are not questions for me. It is not for me to weigh or ponder the evidence or to allow those under my control to do so.
There have been many debates on this matter, and the hon. Gentleman has asked many questions. Most recently, there was a discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee on 13 December last year. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland explained why no Minister could discuss the detail of evidence into the Lockerbie bombing or, indeed, any other criminal case, because once we began to do that, it would jeopardise the prospect of a fair criminal trial and render worthless the painstaking work of the investigators.
Of course—this is one of the hon. Gentleman's main concerns—the books can never be closed. The Dumfries and Galloway constabulary must remain, and does remain, ready to consider any new evidence that might be relevant to the case. The investigation remains open. If anyone has any new information that he or she considers relevant to the case, he or she should give it to the police without delay. Minds cannot be closed to fresh evidence, even if it were to open up new ideas on who carried out the bombing or backed the bombers.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend say, therefore, who has been responsible for denying Mr. Bollier the right to see the evidence about the timing devices? It is a very important part of the evidence. He has been denied the right to see it, because he believes that he could decide whether it was sold to the Libyans or others. Who makes that kind of decision? Is it political, judicial or made by the police?

Mr. Hurd: It is certainly not political. It is certainly not made by me or any other Minister. Let me inquire into that aspect of the case. I shall write to my hon. Friend. It is certainly not me who would have taken any such decision, or could have done so.
The Lord Advocate—this is on a point that the hon. Member for Linlithgow raised—has always been at pains to make it clear that he is not in a position to exonerate other nations or their nationals. He simply has not seen, in his judgment, credible evidence to implicate them.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Foreign Secretary has seen the replies to me in Hansard today from the Secretary of State for Scotland, which, briefly, say that the Crown authorities were not aware of the existence of the US air intelligence report until 23 January this year. The replies discount the report and say that it has no relevance to the inquiry. I ask a simple question: given that the Crown authorities were co-operating so closely with the American authorities, why were they not aware of the existence of that report? Can the Foreign Secretary offer an explanation?

Mr. Hurd: I shall come to that report in a minute.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked a number of detailed questions. I can reply to some of them. He spoke of the Palestinian terrorists who were arrested in Germany in October 1988. It is the firm policy of the Lord

Advocate not to give details of what inquiries have or have not been carried out, but it is necessary to make an exception in this case. In the case of Dalkoumani and Ghadanfar, I can confirm that requests were made for both men to be interviewed, that those requests were granted and that Scottish police officers were present at the interviews.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me to acknowledge what he described as contrary circumstantial evidence put forward by various individuals. We all know that there are a host of alternative theories on the subject. It is not for me, I repeat, to assess those theories. That is and must be a matter for the prosecuting authorities and the Lord Advocate. It is clear that such theories can be based only on an incomplete knowledge and understanding of the mass of evidence that is available to the Lord Advocate, who remains in no doubt that the charges against the two Libyan accused are justified.
That covers the reliability and significance of any particular piece of evidence put before a criminal court by the prosecution, including such matters, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, as the sale of clothing in Malta, the testimony of Edwin Bollier and evidence obtained from staff at Luqa airport. Those are matters which, eventually, we hope, a jury will consider once it has heard all the evidence.
I now deal with the American document, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). It was released by the US Government under the Freedom of Information Act. It contains, as both hon. Members have said, the allegation that former Iranian Interior Minister, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, paid the sum of $10 million to have the Lockerbie bombing carried out. I make two points on the report. The document, as the hon. Member for Banfford Buchan said and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told him, was available to the Crown Office on 24 January, but the allegation in it circulated well before that as a well-publicised rumour during the early stages of the investigation. It appeared in The Sunday Times in the second half of 1989. It appeared later in a book by David Leppard, "On The Trail of Terror", published in 1991.
As anyone who follows the case knows—certainly the two hon. Members do—during the early stages of the investigation, the possibility that Palestinian extremist groups might be responsible was extensively investigated, as were reports of Iranian involvement. No credible evidence—the assessment of the prosecuting authorities—has been found to substantiate either theory.
The document is not, as is sometimes made out, a statement of the views of the American authorities. It is a report of the views of an American intelligence agency source—in fact, an Iranian defector. He or she was reporting second or third-hand information. The source was untried and its reliability could not have been assessed. During the investigation, literally thousands of pieces of raw intelligence, often contradictory, were seen. When the document in question was assessed, as a US Government spokesman made clear last week, it was discarded as a "dud".
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked a number of questions about the US Drug Enforcement Agency. I am assured that no DEA chiefs in Europe were recalled to Washington in the wake of the Lockerbie disaster. As regards the allegation that it was running an anti-narcotics


operation, which went wrong, a copy of the film by Mr. Alan Francovitch, which contains those allegations, has been sent—I think by the hon. Gentleman—to the Crown Office. The matter was considered by the US House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, Government Information Justice and Agriculture Sub-Committee in December 1990. I am arranging for a copy of the statement to that sub-committee by the assistant administrator of the DEA to be placed in the Library of the House.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the discovery of drugs. I think that the Lord Advocate wrote to him on 3 July 1992, saying that the only discovery of drugs at the Lockerbie site was a small quantity of cannabis.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Mr. David Fieldhouse. My understanding is that he has been interviewed several times by the Scottish police and that he gave evidence at the fatal accident inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to explain why the German authorities have not indicted the two Libyan accused. That clearly is a matter for the German prosecuting judicial authorities. It is not something that I can comment on, except to make the obvious point. Given that the bulk of the evidence is in the hands of the Scottish and American authorities, it seems clear to us that the trial should take place in one of those two countries. The German Government agree, as does the Security Council.
Incidentally, I understand that the comments that the hon. Member for Linlithgow attributed to the German state prosecutor were misquoted. The state prosecutor was referring not to the case brought by the Lord Advocate and the American authorities, but to the question of proceedings in Germany based on the evidence held there. The German state prosecutor is not familiar with the full details of the prosecution case.
Let me deal with a point of principle that I consider to be at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I can confirm to him that the prosecuting authorities would take any evidence that tended to exculpate the accused just as seriously as any further evidence that tended to incriminate them. The hon. Gentleman said that that was the authorities' duty, and they see it as their duty.
The hon. Gentleman talked about American personnel being withdrawn from flight 103. I understand that one American Government employee who was booked on the flight missed it because of traffic congestion at Frankfurt, but it is true that a further 23, sadly, were victims of the disaster.
Let me return to the central question of where we stand now. The hon. Gentleman asked how the United Nations sanctions against Libya could be justified. We have asked ourselves repeatedly how best to proceed. The painstaking work of the Scottish police and the Crown Office has led to charges being brought against two Libyan individuals; the case against them stands. It is not a case constructed by me, or by the Foreign Office, and it owes nothing to diplomatic or political considerations. It was put together after the most massive investigation ever to take place in respect of any crime in Britain, and sustained by the Lord Advocate in the warrants that he issued. In his judgment, the case stands.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is it the Government's view that one day the

perpetrators of this terrible mass murder will stand trial in the High Court in Edinburgh—or a similar court elsewhere—or does the Foreign Secretary genuinely believe that they will never be brought to trial?

Mr. Hurd: I do not know the answer to that question, but I believe that it is our job to do our utmost to ensure that they do come to trial. They are outside our reach at present; we are making every effort to bring them within the reach of the court, but matters are not entirely under our control.
We and the American and French Governments—the French are currently concerned with another terrorist crime—have gone to unprecedented lengths to put diplomatic pressure on Libya to surrender the two Libyan citizens who are alleged to have carried out the bombing, and to satisfy the requirements of French justice over the bombing of flight UTA772 in September 1989.

Sir David Steel: Why do the British and French Governments set their faces so determinedly against the idea of trying the two individuals in some other place, such as The Hague, in the absence of an international criminal court?

Mr. Hurd: There are several answers to that. Primary legislation would be required in this country. I am not sure of the grounds on which a Minister would tell the House, "The instruments of justice in Scotland are inadequate for this purpose," but that would have to be the case. Nor, after all that has occurred, could we conceivably feel confident—whatever assurances were given in advance—that the Libyans would hand over those concerned to a court. We would go to the infinite trouble of constructing such a court, in the face of difficulty and controversy, when there could be no guarantee that those concerned would appear before it. We have considered the question, because—as the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) is aware—people have urged us in good faith to take such a course; but I do not think that it is a tenable answer.
Sanctions were imposed on Libya by the Security Council because of Libya's refusal to comply with resolution 731. We do not believe that they should or could be lifted until Libya has complied in full with Security Council resolutions. Let me explain the broader picture, to clear away any misunderstanding of what is involved on the part of the Libyan Government. In pursuing the sanctions and taking the view that I have just expressed, we have no hidden agenda; we are not involved in any vindictive campaign against either the Libyan people or their Government. Provided that Libya shows by concrete means that she has renounced all support for terrorism, we have no desire for sanctions to remain in force any longer than is necessary. On the contrary—I am not sure whether the House knows this—in an attempt to establish that the renunciation of terrorism is real, we have engaged in a number of meetings, at official level, with Libyan representatives to discuss their past links with the Provisional IRA. Although those discussions have not led to a fully satisfactory conclusion, they are evidence of our efforts to show that Libyan assurances in this matter are real.
Once the Libyan Government have arranged for the two Lockerbie suspects to appear for trial in Scotland or the United States and have satisfied French justice over the UTA bombing, we stand ready to see the sanctions suspended immediately. Once Libya has complied with the other requirements of the Security Council resolutions, we expect the sanctions to be lifted without delay. Those who argue that sanctions should be lifted now would do better to help us to persuade the Libyan Government to comply with the Security Council resolutions without further delay.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked whether I entertained any serious hope about the outcome. There have been times over the past two years when, on the basis of the information that I had, I thought that we were quite close to the possibility that the Libyans would comply with the resolution and that the two accused would come forward. I have taken great trouble to explain to various intermediaries how Scottish law functions: I have been fully briefed on that—on the safeguards, the legal precautions, the rights of representation and the nature of evidence required. We have repeatedly given those assurances to the Libyans. Although I have sometimes felt that we are close to the possibility that I have described, we have never actually reached that point; instead, there have been numerous side proposals which I fear were designed simply to prolong delay and throw dust in the eyes of all concerned.
Nevertheless, I do not think that we should despair. I should be reluctant—as, I am sure, the Lord Advocate would be—ever to say, "We give up." I repeat, however, that this is not a political or diplomatic exercise on our part: the crime committed was unique in the history of crime in this country, and our concern is that justice should be done. We shall continue to pursue that objective, and the fewer ramifications or complications are introduced into that simple story, the better will be our chances of success. There may be some points of

detail that I have not picked up from the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that I have managed to deal with the gravamen of his case.
Some people are worried that there has been political interference in this case. The hon. Gentleman has been worried that the Crown Office may not be taking account of all the evidence and all the information that is available. I hope that I have dealt from my own knowledge with the first point and, from the knowledge that has been made available to me, I hope that I have dealt with the second. I thank the House.

Mr. Dalyell: The Foreign Secretary refers to points of detail. The trouble is that it is not a detail that Toni Gauci, the owner of this clothing shop in Malta, on whom the whole case rests, is an exceedingly unreliable witness. Since Scots Members of Parliament cannot get at the Lord Advocate, I do not know what more we can do. The fact remains that what the Foreign Secretary says are details brought up by Mr. Francovitch and others are absolutely crucial to any kind of respectable case, and respectable case there is none. [Interruption.]
The professor of Scots law at the university of Edinburgh has publicly said not only does he think that a jury would not convict but that a judge in Scotland might well throw the case out on the ground that there is no case to answer. That is the situation that we have reached. I do not think that senior Cabinet Ministers can pass everything to the Lord Advocate in such a case.

Dr. Godman: Or worse, pass it to Washington.

Mr. Dalyell: Nor, as my hon. Friend says, can they pass it to Washington.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his courtesy, but in a sense the gravamen of the case has not been responded to. I beg the Government to go to the Lord Advocate and ask him whether he is at ease—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

European Union

Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent representations he has received on the European Union.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I receive from different sources quite regularly representations on the European Union.

Mr. Milburn: Is not it clear from recent interventions by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and Lord Howe that Ministers are simply caving in to the anti-European agenda of some Conservative Back Benchers and people in the Cabinet? Is it not obvious that Britain's interests in Europe are secondary in the Foreign Secretary's mind to the appeasement of competing factions inside the Conservative party? Why does not the Foreign Secretary stand up for what we all know he believes in rather than play footsie with those who clearly want him out of his current job?

Madam Speaker: Order. We have just finished Adjournment debates and we are now in Question Time.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. I thought it was becoming rather stale stuff. On the basis of the general principles which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister established in his speech at Leiden and which he has since elaborated, we are constructing specific and positive proposals which Britain will be able to put forward at the intergovernmental conference next year. That is the immediate task before us and I am sure that that is the right way to set about it.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend endorse and follow the wise advice of Alain Lamassoure, the French European Affairs Minister, who yesterday suggested that central bank governors should keep quiet on EMU, or at least say less, and leave the decisions to the politicians in the member states, particularly as the enthusiasm for EMU is growing everywhere, with the constitutional exception of Denmark?

Mr. Hurd: I do not agree. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister obtained freedom for this country to choose, yes or no, if and when the choice of a single bank and a single currency comes before us, which in our view will not be before 1999. For the moment, we have had enough purely political discussion of these points. What is now needed is a slightly more substantial account, perhaps not led by politicians, of the effect of the change—yes or no—on the freedom and prosperity of our constituents. The Governor's speech yesterday, which was analysed by some newspapers as being for and by others as being against the proposition, set out the pros and cons with admirable clarity.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Which does the Foreign Secretary regard as the more accurate commentary on the Government's policy on Europe: that of the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Howe, who said that the policy is being dragged into a ghetto of sentimentality and

self-delusion, or that of the former Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who said that certain Cabinet Ministers are behaving as if they were members of the Flat Earth Society?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that either comment fills the bill.

Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there is no question of any policies relating to Northern Ireland being constructed under the aegis or framework of a constitutional arrangement that gives effect to the proposals for an all-Ireland policy which would be consistent with any regional policy developed by the European Union?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is an hour in advance of his moment. That question could be properly addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to repeat his description of the manifesto of the nine rebel Members of Parliament as containing ideas that were unreal? Did he read yesterday's statement by the rebels that the concessions by the Cabinet to those unreal ideas were encouraging, but that it must make more? How many more unreal ideas is he prepared to accept, or is it time for the British Government to base their policy towards Europe on the interests of the 60 million people of Britain, not on the careers of the nine Tory Members of Parliament?

Mr. Hurd: I am delighted if any of my hon. Friends, or former hon. Friends, are delighted with Government policy, which is not constructed on the basis of any document that they have issued. It is constructed on what the Prime Minister said at Leiden last November. In his basic statement on what the intergovernmental conference should be about, he said:
The IGC must be the anvil on which we forge a stronger union.
That is our view.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I pose this question specifically to the Foreign Secretary. Does he agree that the European Union is a club of sovereign states? If so, is it possible for one all-Ireland body to represent the views of two sovereign states'?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that that is envisaged even in the thoughts that are being discussed by the British and Irish Governments, but I advise the right hon. Member, as I advised my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), to put that specific point to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vision that he and the Prime Minister have set out of a Europe of nation states, freely co-operating to mutual advantage on a wide range of issues, not only commands the support of the vast majority of the British people, but is entirely consistent with everything that the Conservative party has said on the subject for the past 30 years? Does he further agree that that consistency contrasts starkly with the chopping and changing of the Labour party, whose leader and present Front-Bench


spokesman are espousing positions on Europe which are totally the reverse of those that they adopted just a few years ago?

Mr. Hurd: I may send my hon. Friend a wearisome sheaf of my speeches on the subject—he may have had a hand in some of them, for all I know. They bear out what he said. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have, for several years, been emphasising the point that my hon. Friend summarised about the working together of nation states.
I share my hon. Friend's worries about the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has been billing and cooing all over Brussels. The other day, yesterday perhaps, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made a speech that he could have borrowed from one of my archives. It is a bit worrying to Conservative Members that the main Opposition party should be so sadly divided on the subject.

Macedonia

Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Macedonia.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Promoting the political and economic stability of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia remains a key element in our preventive diplomacy in the southern Balkans. It is important that she should enjoy full international recognition and gain full access to the benefits of co-operation with international institutions.

Ms Eagle: Does the Minister agree that destabilisation in Macedonia would cause a major problem and pose a major threat to peace and stability in Europe, especially as the threat could then spread to Greece and possibly further? Does he think the position there is getting better or worse?

Mr. Hogg: I agree with the main thrust of the hon. Lady's intervention. Clearly, destabilisation in Macedonia could have serious repercussions in the southern Balkans. I am reasonably optimistic as to the stability of the country. That stability depends on the ability and willingness of the Albanians and Macedonians in Macedonia to work together. We shall do all that we can to impress on both communities the importance of co-operation, and to impress on President Gligorov, in particular, the importance of addressing seriously the concerns of the Albanian minority in the country. He is doing so, but he needs continual encouragement.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. and learned Friend have any plans for action within the European Union to bridge the stalemate over the blockade of Macedonia by the Greeks, bearing in mind the fact that it is bringing severe economic hardship?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. The European Court of Justice is today considering the case which has been brought before it by the Commission with the strong support of the British Government. The other way forward is through the mediation of Cyrus Vance.

We hope that the Governments of both Macedonia and Greece will respond positively to the suggestions made by Cyrus Vance.

Mr. O'Hara: Will the Minister recognise that, just as President Gligorov should be urged to resolve his differences with the Albanians, he should also be urged to address positively the serious concerns of the Greeks? He must recognise that the Greeks could be the key to the future security and prosperity of Macedonia.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of good relations between Greece and Macedonia. He is right to imply that the blockade by Greece of Macedonia is having a serious impact on the economy of Macedonia. The hon. Gentleman's point reinforces the answer that I gave previously about the need for both Governments to address positively the proposals of Cyrus Vance.

Middle East

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress being made towards achieving peace in the middle east.

Mr. Hurd: We welcome the substantial progress that is being made, but we are concerned at the strains on the peace process in the wake of the dreadful bombing near Tel Aviv. The forthcoming visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan on 12 and 13 March will underline our continuing support for the peace process.

Mr. Carrington: Although the responsibility for the problems in the peace process is complex, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the principal reasons for that is the new proposed settlements on the west hank? Will my right hon. Friend put maximum pressure on the Israeli Government to stop those proposed settlements and will he put maximum pressure on the American Government to exert what influence they have in Tel Aviv to ensure that the settlements do not carry on?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. We persuaded our European partners on 5 January to set this out again. We expressed our concern and called for a total cessation of new settlements. We believe that all settlements in occupied territories—that includes east Jerusalem—are illegal and an obstacle to peace. We point that out consistently. I hope that my hon. Friend will not ignore the sense of shock over the terrorist bombing in Israel which makes Prime Minister Rabin's task much more difficult.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the Foreign Secretary review his decision to lift the arms embargo on the state of Syria in view of its reluctance to join in the peace process? Will he ensure that that Government are aware of the British Government's condemnation of the murderous activities of Islamic Jihad—it is based in Damascus—in Netayna on 22 January?

Mr. Hurd: We would not be justified in urging our European partners—it was a European decision—to reimpose that arms embargo. I have already made clear my views about the terrorist act in Israel which killed 21 people.
On the Syrian track of the peace process, movement is needed from both sides. They will both have to show flexibility. I believe that they will achieve a settlement down that track, but the process of getting there is proving very slow.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the peace process is to continue to advance, as I know we all hope that it will, it is necessary not only for Syria and all Israel's neighbours to join in, but for states that paticipate in the process to not only condemn terrorism but take active steps to remove international terrorism from their territory?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, I agree. I do not think that one should underestimate the difficulties that Mr. Arafat has in Jericho and Gaza; we all know that they are real and formidable. We hope that the meeting in Cairo tomorrow between the leaders of the countries of the region and the PLO will serve to give fresh impetus to the peace process and in particular to the Palestinian track.

Mr. Morgan: On the position of Iraq in the middle eastern peace process, what further action can the Government take against the Iraqi Government following the attempted assassination in Iraq of the defector from the Iraqi army, Major Safa al Battat, who is currently being treated for his attempted poisoning at Llandough hospital in Cardiff which serves my constituency? What is the Government's policy on defectors from the Iraqi army who are helping Shi'ite rebels against the Iraqi Government? Is there any Government assistance to the hospital to help it provide 24-hour security for Major al Battat?

Mr. Hurd: That does not arise from the question and I do not think that it is within my responsibilities. However, it is clearly a serious matter so I shall look into it and ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a letter.

Mr. Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Dr. Shaqaqi, the leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, claimed responsibility for the bombing from Damascus on 22 January and that no action has been taken against him by the Syrian authorities? How does that square with Syria's profession that it is no longer a terrorist state and wishes to participate in the peace process?

Mr. Hurd: That is a fair question. I cannot confirm the facts as stated by my hon. Friend, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) said, it is clearly the responsibility of all the states that border Israel or which have any concern in the matter to ensure that terrorist activities are not planned from their territory.

Mr. Cousins: The whole House supports the Foreign Secretary's condemnation of terrorist incidents and will welcome the Prime Minister's visit to Israel, Palestine and, especially, Gaza. But can the Foreign Secretary throw any light on what the Prime Minister will be taking with him by way of definite programmes of economic help which will assist the Palestinian authorities and the brave and beleaguered Israeli Government and bring hope in the immediate future to all the unemployed young men of Gaza whose lives and opportunities are a central element in resolving the crisis?

Mr. Hurd: Certainly. We are providing £75 million in support of the peace process and the Palestinians over the next three financial years—that it is in bilateral British

and multilateral assistance. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we have concentrated especially on what Mr. Arafat asked me to do, which was to provide help for the police force—£3 million for salaries, training courses for senior officers and 200 sets of equipment—and we are now seeking to finalise a further package of technical assistance worth £250,000.

Far East

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of relationships with countries in the far east.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Our relations with the great majority of countries in the far east are excellent and we are working to enhance them further across a wide range of fields including trade, investment, education and culture. The strength of these relations is reflected in British exports to the Asia Pacific region, which rose by nearly 20 per cent. in the first 11 months of 1994 compared with the same period in 1993.

Mr. Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the Foreign Office will next year give a high priority to improving our relationship where possible with the countries known as the tiger nations in the far east? Those countries are economically very successful; they offer a great many opportunities to this country and believe in the free market and the enterprise philosophy. Will he therefore give every possible support to those countries and our relationship with them?

Mr. Goodlad: Yes. The Government have already reallocated resources to strengthen the commercial sections in the 11 posts in the region. New trade offices have been opened in Nagoya and Pusan and others are under consideration. Seventy-three trade-related ministerial visits to the Asian Pacific countries have been undertaken or are planned in the current financial year, many accompanied by business delegations. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the immense importance of those countries to us.

Mr. Parry: Will the Minister make a statement on the relationship between the British Government and the democratic Government of Taiwan?

Mr. Goodlad: We have no diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

Mr. Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the state of our relations with Malaysia and, in particular, the prospects for further orders of defence equipment upon which many British Aerospace jobs in Lancashire depend?

Mr. Goodlad: Our relations with Malaysia are good. The Malaysian Government made it clear that they regard last year's problems as a thing of the past. Our exports to Malaysia continue to grow strongly and in 1994 seem likely to have increased by some 40 per cent. over the previous year. I anticipate that the forthcoming year will be good as well.

Rev. Martin Smyth: May I refer to the terse response concerning Taiwan given earlier? Is it not time that we started to take the lead as a nation to bring Taiwan, as a


people and as a nation, into the democratic community and into the United Nations, in which it can at least contribute in comparison to other member countries that do not pay their way?

Mr. Goodlad: Since 1972, this country has recognised the People's Republic of China as the sole representative of China at the United Nations. The claims of Taiwan are not so recognised.

Russian Federation

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of potential instability within the republics and other constituent units which currently comprise the Russian Federation.

Mr. Hurd: The conflict in Chechnya could destabilise the north Caucasus, but has not yet done so. Despite calls for a regional uprising by General Dudayev, fighting has so far been confined to Chechnya. There is no evidence that the conflict has so far stirred up secessionist tendencies elsewhere in the federation.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: In the wake of the Chechnya disaster, does my right hon. Friend believe that the Russian Federation will be able to resist the significant number of secessionist movements elsewhere in the federation? Does he believe that the international community could make available further technical assistance to provide further stability in the former Soviet Union, which must be of paramount interest to this country?

Mr. Hurd: It is not in our interests that the Russian Federation should degenerate into chaos, but my hon. Friend is right in calling what is happening in Chechnya a disaster. The Prime Minister has written to President Yeltsin on the matter and I have been in touch with Mr. Kozyrev. Some humanitarian help is getting through. The Overseas Development Administration, our organisation, has committed £1 million. Half of that will be channelled through the British Red Cross to the international appeal of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The latest tranche of European aid, amounting to a total of £8 million, was announced this morning.

Mr. Robin Cook: May I press on the Foreign Secretary the grave concern across the nation at the scale of military violence in Chechnya? Does he agree that bombing hospitals and village markets serves no legitimate military role and that the west must support those in Russia who, with great personal courage, have condemned such attacks? May I specifically press the Foreign Secretary on the joint military exercise with Russia due to take place later this year? Will he assure the House that it would not be appropriate for British forces to be engaged in a joint exercise with the Russian army, unless the war in Chechnya is first brought to an end and the people of Chechnya are able to live in peace?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has the accent of this right. The point that he made about the disproportionate brutal use of force has already been made by the Prime Minister to President Yeltsin. It is also reflected in the declaration that my European colleagues and I issued at the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 January. There are a number of points coming up, on which we would have

been very glad to co-operate with the Russians on specific matters over the coming year. We will still be glad if the Chechen situation can be quickly resolved along the lines set out by the Prime Minister.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned one area. There is also the signature of the interim agreement, which may be ready by March. At the Foreign Affairs Council we said that we would need to watch what is happening very carefully and judge what further steps might be needed.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while no individual country or international organisation has the right to encourage rebellion, it is very important that there is unequivocal condemnation of the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians and the destruction of their homes? Will he confirm that that violates the spirit and probably the letter of the Helsinki agreements? Will my right hon. Friend be a little more forthright in his condemnation of what has happened?

Mr. Hurd: We have been very firm, as I was personally in a speech that I made last week. What the Europeans have said, and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told President Yeltsin, has left Russia in no doubt about the cloud that Chechnya casts over the reform process and, therefore, over our support for the reform process. We are not supporting personalities in Russia; we are supporting the process of reform.

Human Rights

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues the United Kingdom has raised at this week's United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The UN Commission on Human Rights runs from 30 January to 10 March. The commission will pass over 100 resolutions on a wide range of human rights themes and the human rights situation in various countries. The United Kingdom will participate in the drafting of some and in the negotiating of all of them. I will deliver the United Kingdom national statement on 8 February.

Mr. Mullin: What position will we take over the illegal occupation of East Timor by Indonesia? Does the Minister think that our desire to sell Indonesia large quantities of weapons will in any way confuse the Indonesians about the seriousness with which we take the issue?

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that the Indonesians are the least bit confused. We have made it very plain that we do not recognise Indonesian annexation of East Timor. Furthermore, we strongly support the intervention of the United Nations Secretary-General to resolve that point. We urge the parties to play an active and positive role in coming to terms under his auspices.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: While recognising local customs, traditions and values, may ask my right hon. and learned Friend to agree that the cause of universal human rights is set back by the selective attitude of certain countries to them? In particular, I mention the attitude of Muslim countries to those who proselytise or evangelicise


for Christianity in their countries, especially in Iran, Egypt recently, and Pakistan. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make that an issue for discussions at the talks?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right to focus on the universality of human rights. There is a worrying disposition on the part of some countries to argue that the achievement of human rights can be postponed in relation to the achievement of other objectives, for example, economic progress. I believe that that is wrong. We are right to emphasise on every possible occasion that all countries have, as a paramount duty, the obligation to ensure a proper respect for human rights within their frontiers.

Mrs. Clwyd: On the question of torture, will the Minister defend the export of electronic shock batons from the United Kingdom to overseas countries where torture is widespread? Why, when I asked the Government to list the companies to which export licences were granted for that purpose, was I told that the question could be answered only at disproportionate cost? Is not that just dodging the question once again? Does not it give the game away? Does not the Minister understand that nothing destroys the Government's credibility more than turning a blind eye to such a disgusting trade?

Mr. Hogg: We do not turn a blind eye to those issues. Our position on those matters is crystal clear. During the speech that I will give, I will draw attention to the importance that we attach to combating torture wherever it is found. For that reason, we will also be supporting the re-adoption of the mandate for the rapporteur on that subject.

European Union

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to prepare the United Kingdom for an expanded European Union.

Mr. Hurd: One of our most important objectives in the rest of this century is the expansion of the European Union to the east. That will require the countries of central and eastern Europe to adapt their economies to the demands of the single market, but it will also involve fundamental reform of existing European Union policies, in particular the common agricultural policy and the structural funds. We shall be pressing for that.

Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that no Conservative Member is against enlargement and that the more we enlarge the more remote becomes the possibility of a single currency? Conservative Members also share some scepticism about the European Union, although none of us wants to leave it. Is there not a united party strategy on Europe which is very much in accord with the views of the British people? Is that not in sharp contrast with the Opposition, who are not only inconsistent about Europe but split three ways?

Mr. Hurd: I have already made a puzzled comment on the position of the Opposition. My hon. Friend is perfectly right. There is much more common ground on such matters than commentators would like to believe. That will emerge as the immediately past tumult dies down and the serious policy work goes forward.
We need to remember that the European Union is greatly attractive to those who live in the centre and east of Europe, as their strong interest in joining it makes clear. As my hon. Friend has said, we have always believed that the European Union's door should be open to those who wish to join the rest of Europe and are able to do so.

Mr. Skinner: Why does the Foreign Secretary not understand that, out there in Britain, the centre of gravity in relation to attitudes to the Common Market has shifted dramatically in the past few years? From Brightlingsea to Shoreham, the Cornish fishermen and all the rest around Britain, it is significant that, after 21 years of the Common Market and 16 years of the Tory Government, people are fed up to the back teeth.

Mr. Hurd: I understand the hon. Gentleman's motives in this matter, but his rant should be directed at the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, within the expanded European Union, there will be great scope for much better co-ordination of defence policy? Is it not absurd that industries are co-ordinated but that defence industries are specifically excluded? Does that not play into the hands of the United States, where competition is intense?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend may have read the admirable speech on defence policies in Europe made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in Brussels the day before yesterday. It was a painstaking and thorough analysis with some very interesting thoughts in it, to which should certainly be added the consideration that my hon. Friend has brought forward.

Ms Quin: The 1996 conferences will, presumably, prepare the way for enlargement. In that connection, the Secretary of State for Employment is recorded as saying that there are three matters on which members of the Cabinet have already agreed to use their veto. Will the Secretary of State confirm those three matters? In particular, in respect of powers to the European Parliament, does that mean that the Government will even veto any measures to allow the Parliament greater control over the European Commission?

Mr. Hurd: No, nor has anybody said anything to that effect. On the contrary, we believe that if the new European Parliament, which was elected last year, really wants to establish a reputation with the citizens, it should concentrate precisely on dealing with those matters which national Parliaments cannot reach. In particular, it should use to the full the powers given to it to deal with fraud.

Mr. Hendry: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to argue for Britain to opt out of the social chapter within an enlarged European Union,'? In particular, will he draw attention to the report from the European chambers of commerce, which was published yesterday, on 120,000 firms in Europe? It showed that British firms expect to create more new jobs than firms in any other country in Europe, and that German firms expect to create fewer because of the horrendous social costs that they face.

Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. There was more evidence to that effect during Prime Minister's Question Time


yesterday. It is perfectly true that employers, particularly on the continent, have been rather slow to raise their voices against the distortions and uncompetitiveness that have been imposed on Europe by some legislation. It is important that we should be clear that the arrival of a Labour Government, with the one policy on which Opposition Members are all agreed—the imposition of the social chapter—would be pretty disastrous for jobs in this country.

Child Labour

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty Government's policy towards child labour.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We are very concerned about the exploitation of child labour abroad. We support measures to protect the rights of children, including the right to be protected from economic exploitation.

Mrs. Jackson: Should not the Government be deeply ashamed of the UN report on this country's record on children's rights, which was published last week? That report criticised Britain on nearly every aspect included in the convention on children's rights drawn up by the UN. Will the Government make a start in complying with the UN convention by at least agreeing to change their stance on child labour within the European Union and by complying with the child labour directive in 1996, like everyone else, instead of securing an opt-out to put that decision off for four years?

Mr. Hogg: The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child examined the report last week, but we have not yet received its conclusions. If the hon. Lady has given a correct account of what is in the report, I am bound to say that it does not seem to make a great deal of sense. We shall respond in due course. What we do within the United Kingdom is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the House that the declaration of the rights of the child was initiated by the United Kingdom? Would he like to mark that by paying tribute to James Grant—who has just died—who, as executive head of UNICEF, was responsible for the signing of 170 countries to the declaration of the rights of the child, and who was fully supported by the UK?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a number of points with considerable force. Lying behind what she says is the fact that there are serious problems in the world relating to the exploitation of children. For a committee to criticise the United Kingdom in the way in which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) states is, frankly, trivialising that issue.

West Bank

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations

he has made to the Israeli Government regarding the present and possible expansion of Jewish settlements in the west bank.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We and our EU partners regularly raise with the Israeli Government our concerns about settlement building in the occupied territories, reaffirming that it is illegal and should be stopped.

Mr. Gunnell: I am glad that the Minister takes that stance. Does he agree that the so-called settlement freeze underpins the declaration of principles? If the Minister agrees with the Foreign Secretary that the settlement policy poses a great problem to Mr. Rabin, does he also agree that it poses just as great a problem to Mr. Arafat? Will he redouble his efforts to have the entire EC press for a cessation in the expansion of the settlements because, without that, the peace process will not move forward?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made our opposition to the settlement policy plain, and we regard it as an obstacle to the middle east peace process. We have taken every opportunity to say so, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. and learned Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary praise the flexibility of Mr. Rabin. Does he agree that it is most unfortunate that that flexibility is being rewarded both by the failure of the captors of Ron Arad to release him and by the fact that the Hamas-inspired guerillas continue to wage war on the people of Israel?

Mr. Hogg: The Government, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in particular, have paid tribute to Prime Minister Rabin on many occasions. The steps which he has taken in committing the Israelis to the peace process are acts of courage of historic importance. I agree that other forces, to which my hon Friend referred, are working against that. In particular, the acts of violence—to which my hon. Friend also referred—are also serious obstacles to the peace process. It is vital that we do all that we can to persuade those responsible for those acts of violence to stop them. Furthermore, it is a serious disgrace that Ron Arad should he held—if he is still alive—and he should be released with all possible speed.

Sir David Steel: A few minutes ago the Foreign Secretary made an oblique reference to the disappointing quality of the new administration in Jericho and Gaza. Does he recognise that the delay in holding elections is partly caused by the continued settlement programme? Will he confirm that the number of settlements has increased by nearly 10 per cent. since the Oslo agreement?

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is echoing the point made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I agree that the creation of additional settlements is an obstacle to peace. It makes it more difficult for the Palestinians to move forward. The principal obstacle to holding elections, however, is not so much the settlements but the Israelis' failure to redeploy their forces away from residential areas within the occupied territories. I would focus on that point. The right hon. Gentleman's broad point, however, is entirely sound.

Middle East

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his European partners to discuss the middle east peace process.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We are in regular contact with our European partners about the middle east peace process, most recently at the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 January.

Mr. Ross: Has the Minister had a chance to discuss with his European partners the blocking, losing and selling of equipment donated by the European Union to the emerging embryonic Palestinian authority in Gaza and the west bank, which is causing considerable problems there? I am sure that the Minister does not need me to remind him that six sewage trucks from the Paris municipality have been blocked in the port of Ashdod since October 1994; medical material from the European Union was lost in 1993; and two ambulances and two Land Rovers donated to the Nablus chamber of commerce have been blocked for the past six months.
Much more important for this House, computers worth several hundred thousand francs, donated by the European Union but paid for by our Government, were eventually sold at auction by Israeli customs because of bills that had been run up by the deliberate failure to allow them to get out of the port of Ashdod. What will the Minister do about that? Will he get someone from the Tel Aviv embassy to go to the port of Ashdod to clear that backlog?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of instances. I have not discussed those matters with my European colleagues. Although I have seen a large number of representatives of the Palestinian community in London, they have not raised those points with me. That is not to say that the points are not real and do not need to be dealt with. The hon. Gentleman has raised them and I shall have them looked at. If there is substance in what he said, we shall see what we can do to assist.

Drug Trafficking

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last consulted his Colombian counterparts to discuss co-operation over control of drug trafficking.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed co-operation to control drug trafficking with the Colombians when he met the Ministers of Finance, of Mines and Energy, and of Foreign Trade on 30 January.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend will acknowledge the excellent relations that exist between this country and Colombia. Will he join me in giving his whole-hearted support to any ventures to combat the evils of drug trafficking? To that end, when he meets Colombian Ministers later this year, will he strongly support the positive British input into the new police-army units that I have seen in Colombia, in which British expertise in security and technology plays such an important part?

Mr. Baldry: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Clearly, tackling the drugs trade concerns us all. The

Government of Colombia are committed to eradicating coca and opium cultivation throughout Colombia. We should not underestimate the scale of that task. We continue to support the Colombian Government in tackling the drugs trade. We have made available almost £13 million of assistance since 1989 and at present we are supporting a three-year programme of rural anti-narcotics training for the Colombian anti-narcotics police. Customs and Excise has been providing training for drug enforcement agencies. I am pleased to have my hon. Friend's endorsement of the work that we do there.

Mr. Miller: Would it not be more helpful to the Colombians if we gave greater support to communities in this country? Should we not tell the Colombians that we shall strengthen our Customs and Excise and police activities, rather than, as is happening in my constituency, closing Customs and Excise operations, so that there is no longer a single police officer engaged in drugs traffic work?

Mr. Baldry: It is important that we tackle demand as well as production as part of any international drugs strategy. That is why we have a substantial programme of domestic action to tackle drug misuse, which costs more than £500 million each year and includes vigorous law enforcement, education and prevention measures.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that drug trafficking is one of the most horrific problems facing the world today? There are growing millions of drug addicts in America, in Europe and in the Commonwealth countries alone. The gross annual turnover from drug trafficking in some countries exceeds the gross domestic product of a country like the United Kingdom and many countries are politically totally in the hands of the drug mafia. We can deal with the problem only through urgent and intensive international co-operation. Will the Minister, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, do everything possible to ensure that such co-operation occurs?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The drugs threat is a many-headed hydra. It is an international problem which requires an international response. All countries must encourage international co-operation to combat the threat, and that is why we take a leading role in the United Nations drug control programme.
I am pleased to inform the House that we are the second largest contributor of funds to the programme. We also provide substantial amounts of development aid to other countries to allow them to play their part, as was illustrated in an earlier answer about Colombia. I agree with everything that my hon. and learned Friend has said and he can rest assured that the United Kingdom is determined to play a leading role in tackling international drug trafficking.

Rwanda

Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his Department's policy on Rwanda.

Mr. Baldry: Our policy is to work with the international community and with the Rwandan and other regional Governments to encourage the return of refugees,


to promote reconciliation between the parties, to rehabilitate Rwanda and to prevent a recurrence of the events of 1994 or a destabilisation of the region.

Mrs. Roche: Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely essential that the criminals who were responsible for last April's campaign of genocide are brought to justice swiftly? Will he inform the House what his Department and the Government are doing to support the work of the international tribunal and to help the Government of Rwanda re-establish their own judicial system?

Mr. Baldry: I agree that it is imperative that everyone who is involved in war crimes is brought to trial. That is why an international criminal tribunal for Rwanda was established by a United Nations Security Council resolution last November. The United Kingdom was a co-sponsor of that resolution and we are determined that the tribunal will bring to justice as many as possible of those who were responsible for war crimes.
We shall contribute up to £200,000 to the tribunal in the form of personnel and equipment. It has established a prosecutor's office in Kigali and the question of how many suspects should be tried by the tribunal is a matter for the prosecutor.
In addition to setting up the international criminal tribunal, the UN has drawn up a plan to reconstruct the Rwandan judicial system so as to re-establish a proper judicial mechanism to try any remaining suspects. That move has our support as well.

Mr. Lester: While acknowledging that important work, will my hon. Friend also consider the principal problem of a lack of infrastructure in organising the return to Rwanda of those people who fled the country? Many non-governmental organisations are seeking to work in that country but there is little infrastructure in Kigali to assist them. Will the Minister look at that critical element in the context of our generous aid programme to Rwanda?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Of course, to build up the infrastructure it has been necessary for the international community to commit large amounts of humanitarian aid to Rwanda. Last year, we committed more than £60 million worth of aid to the relief effort. We recently announced a further £2 million for immediate rehabilitation needs in the country—the sort of infrastructure needs to which my hon. Friend referred. I can today inform the House that Britain is contributing another £4 million to Rwanda in response to the United Nations' most recent appeal.

Mr. Worthington: The major problem at the moment is instability in the camps in Zaire. I view with foreboding the fact that the contract to police the militia who are now running the camps there has been allocated to the army of Zaire. When will it dawn on the permanent members of the Security Council, especially Britain and France, that unless they are willing to provide the logistical support necessary to back up UN operations, there will be another Rwandan tragedy in the coming year because we have neglected the situation now?

Mr. Baldry: We take seriously the matter of security in the refugee camps; clearly there is a need to find an answer to the security problems there. The way forward

must lie in co-operation between the host Governments and the UN. The Secretary-General has asked the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to make appropriate arrangements to enhance security in the camps. We look forward to studying the proposed arrangements and to considering, with the UNHCR, how best we can assist in implementing them. We shall certainly give our fullest possible support to the High Commissioner and to the Secretary-General in that difficult task.

European Union

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his counterparts in the European Union to discuss greater political union.

Mr. Hurd: I have regular discussions on those matters with my European Union counterparts at meetings of the General Affairs Council. The next meeting of the General Affairs Council is scheduled for 6 and 7 February.

Sir David Knox: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a speech made by Ray Seitz last year, shortly before he ceased to be the American ambassador to Britain, in which he stated that British influence in the United States depended on the degree to which we were effectively engaged in the European Union? Has the Foreign Office fully taken that advice into account, coming as it does from a very good friend of this country who has its best interests at heart?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, I remember the speech—it was a good one. We certainly believe, as the Prime Minister said at Leiden, that we need to strengthen the European Union, of which we are a part. Of particular interest to the United States are defence, on which I have already answered one question, and about which the Secretary of State for Defence has also just made a speech, and foreign policy. We believe that we are only at the beginning of effective co-operation between Europeans, under the framework of the treaty of Maastricht intergovernmental co-operation. We believe, as the Prime Minister also said at Leiden, that we should be more ambitious under this heading.

Mr. Hoon: Does the Foreign Secretary believe that the deep divisions in the Conservative party on European questions are a help or a hindrance to him in best representing Britain's interests in negotiations with our European partners?

Mr. Hurd: They are certainly a help, if they are quickly resolved on the basis of commonsense policies—as they will be.

Mr. Key: Has my right hon. Friend made representations to ensure the appointment of Sir Leon Brittan as vice-president of the Commission?

Mr. Hurd: No, I have made no representations. They would not have been right or necessary. He was elected a vice-president of the European Commission this morning—I gather with a hefty majority. I am sure that the whole House would like to congratulate him.

Lithuania

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to improve relations between the United Kingdom and Lithuania.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We already have close and friendly relations with Lithuania based on our strong support for her independence, democratic and economic development and integration into European structures. There have been several high-level visits in both directions over the last year, and trade is increasing.

Mr. Flynn: Rather than concentrate our technical aid for Lithuania on the Chernobyl-type nuclear reactors at Ignalina, would it not be better to concentrate the aid on a sustainable source of energy? Some 40 per cent. of Lithuania is covered by forests, so should we not encourage coppicing and other non-food farm production which would produce a source of energy but which is sustainable, environmentally friendly, inexhaustible, and Lithuanian?

Mr. Hogg: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has really faced the enormity of the problem. As Ignalina supplies 90 per cent. of Lithuania's energy needs, closing the reactor, or finding different sources of energy, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is not an easy decision. We have focused most of our assistance through the nuclear safety account. I suggest that that is the best way forward.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we should be responding to what Lithuania wants from us rather than trying to impose upon it what the west believes is good for it? I think that Lithuania probably became fed up with the Soviet Union doing that in the past. Has Lithuania been asking for more advice on how to privatise its industries and to bring free enterprise and an open market into its economy?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When we are trying to decide what projects we wish to support in a particular country, it is extremely important to have regard to that country's list of priorities.
The answer to the specific part of my hon. Friend's question is yes. The Government of Lithuania are extremely anxious to pursue a restructuring and privatisation policy. Lithuania, like most of the other countries of central and eastern Europe in the former Soviet Union, looks to Britain as having special expertise in this policy.

World Summit for Social Development

Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the nature of the United Kingdom representation at the world summit for social development.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: A final decision on attendance at the summit will be taken nearer the date.

Mr. Denham: Is it true that the United Kingdom will not be one of the 94 countries to be represented at the summit by the Head of Government or head of state? Is it not a sad fact that a few years ago this country would have been regarded as a world leader at conferences dealing with international co-operation and development?

We now appear to have no one worth sending and nothing worth saying when talking about poverty, whether at home or abroad.

Mr. Hogg: I cannot help feeling that the hon. Gentleman is trivialising the question. As I have said, it is our intention to determine the level of representation nearer the time. We shall do that against a background, first, of what it is reasonable to expect to come out of the conference and, secondly, of the level of representation that may be determined upon by other participating countries.

Zimbabwe

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the President of Zimbabwe to discuss bilateral relations.

Mr. Baldry: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met President Mugabe in May and in November last year. There are at present no plans for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to do so.

Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the transition of Zimbabwe to independence has been a huge success and that the country's stability is encouraging investment? Does he agree also that there are great opportunities for British firms in Zimbabwe?
To sound a note of caution, however, does my hon. Friend agree that the Zimbabwean Government must adhere to the rule of law at all times, and above all not compulsorily purchase farms without proper compensation?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is right. Since independence, Zimbabwe has set an example of what can be achieved by promoting reconciliation. Indeed, it has shown what can be achieved in Africa. President Mugabe has abandoned the policy of a one-party state for one of multi-party democracy, thereby liberalising the economy. That has led to greater investment in Zimbabwe. There are more than 400 companies with British connections and a book value of British investment of about £400 million. I am glad to say that Zimbabwe is well on the way to economic recovery and sustainable growth.

Grozny

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to offer his services as an intermediary in the conflict in Grozny; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is already trying to help Russia find a solution to the tragic conflict in Chechnya. We have made clear our full support for its efforts, and encouraged the Russian authorities to offer their full co-operation. A senior British official is a member of the OSCE team which has just visited Moscow and Chechnya.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the situation in Grozny and Chechnya poses serious danger to peace in Europe and


the rest of the world, not to mention the hideous suffering there? If it is possible for the United Kingdom to play a stronger role, will he seek to ensure that it does?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already conveyed our anxieties very clearly to President Yeltsin, as we have through the Foreign Affairs Council, but we shall certainly do our best, through the European Union and direct, and now through the OSCE, which has managed to get admission into Chechnya, on the humanitarian, human rights and the political side.

Mr. Gapes: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the people behind weak President Yeltsin that, if there is any move towards an authoritarian or quasi-military regime in Russia, it will have serious political and economic consequences, and that we do not believe that we can keep good relations with a country that moves towards dictatorship?

Mr. Hurd: As I said earlier to the House, our genuine support for Russia is for a reforming Russia rather than for any group of personalities. The test is the continuance of reform.

Northern Ireland (Framework Document)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission, I will make a statement concerning the lead story in The Times today. First, the background.
The House knows that, for a considerable time, Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government have been engaged in discussing a joint framework document. It has long been recognised in Northern Ireland and further afield that political progress can be achieved only by dialogue and agreement among all who are properly concerned. The purpose of the two Governments has therefore been to help the main constitutional parties get into inclusive political talks again.
How? In two ways: first, by offering the British Government's own suggestions for new democratic arrangements for the internal government of Northern Ireland; and, secondly, by jointly offering the parties, as we were requested to do, the two Governments' shared ideas about a possible basis for the other parts of a comprehensive political settlement. We are seeking a basis that might have the best chance of getting the wide support that will be needed in Northern Ireland, so that further talks will be seen to be worth while.
That document, if we could agree it, would simply be offered to the Northern Ireland parties, not as some blueprint to be imposed—time and again, we have made that clear—but for the parties to examine it. They could accept it; they could reject it; they could amend it; they could adapt it. But at least we would hope that they would sit down again together and discuss the issues in it. That has been our purpose. It remains our purpose. Far from imposing it, the Prime Minister made it clear that, once agreed, it will be immediately published, so that not only the parties but all the people of Northern Ireland can consider it.
If, as we hope, the parties resume discussions and reach the wide agreement that would be necessary, the people of Northern Ireland will have their direct and decisive say on the outcome. Any agreement that the parties may come to must be put to them in a referendum—for them to show whether they agree or not.
Lastly, it goes without saying that the consent of Parliament would be required. That is the triple lock—parties, people, Parliament—the triple lock against imposition upon the people of Northern Ireland that the Prime Minister has so often spoken of.
We have not yet reached agreement on a framework document to the parties. Last Thursday, Mr. Spring and I met in London, and afterwards we both said that work on important matters remained to be done. That is still the position.
Both Governments hope, and earnestly hope, that we can reach agreement, but consent will be the key, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that, because consent would be absent, we could not, for example, propose arrangements providing for joint authority over Northern Ireland—that is to say, the British and Irish Governments jointly running the affairs of Northern Ireland over the heads of its people. Nor, for the same reason, could we agree to propose any north-south body that was autonomous. A body accountable to a Northern Ireland

elected assembly, which would delegate authority to those of its members discharging its functions, is a different matter.
Such a body, empowered in that way and accountable to the assembly, making common cause north and south in areas of common interest and mutual benefit, might well secure consent. Similarly, we have always made it clear that for the same reason there would be no point in advancing proposals that left the Irish territorial claim to Northern Ireland in place.
These are matters of the greatest sensitivity and difficulty—even danger—in an area where fears and suspicions very understandably abound on all sides. An enormous amount potentially turns on them.
In today's Times story, I recognise a few phrases lifted, highly selectively, from a lengthy negotiating text which has been employed in the discussions with the Irish Government, but on which the Governments have not agreed. I do not, however, recognise the conclusions that the author draws from those phrases. For example, the story leads with an assertion that the British and Irish Governments have drawn up a document that brings the prospect of a united Ireland closer than it has been at any time since partition in 1920. That is simply not true.
What is true is that the future of Northern Ireland is declared by both Governments in the Downing street declaration to lie in the hands of the people who live there. That is where it rests, and that is where it will stay. The two Governments constantly reiterate that principle of democracy; it has been the foundation of our resolute opposition to 25 years of violence—now ended, we trust, for good.
I must not be drawn into premature publication of a document in the negotiations which has not been agreed by the Governments in reaction to distorting leaks calculated to destabilise and destroy an immensely sensitive process. That process is too important for the people of Northern Ireland to be further damaged in such a way. When, and only when, an entire package of proposals is published conforming to the principles by which we stand can parties, people and Parliament judge its true worth.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: The Secretary of State will know that, throughout the peace process, we have given our full support to the Government's endeavours. That peace process may at times seem fragile, but it still represents the best hope that the people of Northern Ireland have had in a generation during which they have experienced little more than division and suffering. Any help that we can give to allow the process to continue, honourably and sensibly, we will give.
Whenever a document is selectively leaked, there is a risk that the impression given by the manner of its leaking will be far worse than its actual contents. I therefore urge all parties to wait and to study what is actually being proposed, rather than selective interpretations of it. The Secretary of State will know of the work that we have been doing, and of our proposals for jobs, industry and investment in Northern Ireland. Can there be any doubt today that much of the new-found economic hope there will falter if the peace process does not continue?
Let me ask the Secretary of State three direct questions. First, will he assure the House that the British Government will redouble their efforts, along with the Irish Government, to produce a framework document as


speedily as possible? He indicated in his statement that that would happen, but will he act in a way that will guarantee that no party, and no Conservative Back Bencher, will be allowed a veto on what is to be discussed?
Secondly, will the Secretary of State assure the House that any framework document that is published will respond fairly to both traditions in Northern Ireland, and that the consent of the majority there will be the guarantee of a balanced constitutional settlement? Thirdly, the Secretary of State said in his statement that the accountability of the north-south body would be to an elected assembly in Northern Ireland and to the Dublin Government. What mechanisms will be put in place to underpin such an arrangement?
Finally, I know that the Secretary of State will agree that, for this process to carry on succeeding, we all need to be open and honest in our dealings, and that the language he uses and the commitments he makes must be the same to all parties. The good will on all sides must be matched by good faith.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I begin by expressing my gratitude to the hon. Lady for what she said and for supporting the peace process both in the past and promised for the future. Secondly, I endorse her remarks about selective leaking, particularly of highly sensitive documents that deal with a subject and a process of this delicacy and importance.
The hon. Lady asked three questions, the first of which was, would the British Government redouble their efforts? We are working as hard as we can with the Irish Government, and have been for a long time, to reach a shared understanding of the character that I have described. But there must be adherence to the principles that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has described, of which I have just reminded the House. That is fundamental.
Secondly, the hon. Lady asked whether I could give an assurance that the joint framework document, if we agree it, will propose arrangements that will deal fairly with both traditions. Of course that is essential. I repeat what I said earlier: that it is absolutely essential that any proposals by the two Governments shall represent the basis for an agreement, an overall accommodation, that has the best prospects of getting wide consent and support right across that divided community. It would be futile if it were otherwise.
The hon. Lady asked what mechanisms there might be. I must not be drawn on that third question into discussing what may be in an ultimate document that would be agreed. It is important to bear in mind the principle, which has always been emphasised by my right hon. Friend, that Her Majesty's Government exercise responsibility for Northern Ireland and for events there. That will always continue to be the case.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State recall that, on the first day of December, I was informed that a framework document did not exist? Why were we being told by the Northern Ireland Office only last evening that the Times report is based on a document of 25 November, a week before that statement was made to me?
Secondly, why were the Ulster political representatives denied the opportunity to at least inject some degree of common sense and realism into the thinking of an obscure liaison group consisting of British and Irish civil servants who are not terribly interested in the fate of political parties or Governments?
Thirdly, there have been disclosures. I use the plural because there have been leaks and disclosures over a period of weeks, so it is not just last evening's operation. Over those weeks, they have made irrelevant the post-publication consultations which we were promised, and have thereby wrecked the framework concept.
Will the Secretary of State now heed the advice that I have offered on several occasions and initiate discussions with representatives of the four main constitutional parties on how, first, we clear away the debris and, secondly, start building on structures based on democratic principles?
Finally, what did the Secretary of State mean by the phrase in his statement which reads:
we hope … the parties resume discussions".
All the Northern Ireland parties have been effectively excluded from discussions on the framework document.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have always said to the right hon. Gentleman that there is no agreement on a framework document. That was so on 1 December, and it is so today. I do not propose to breach the confidentiality of discussions that have taken place between his nominees and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, or, indeed, between the right hon. Gentleman and me. He has known that we have always made it clear that we have been negotiating with the Irish Government to see whether we can together agree a document of the character that I have described today. Equally, I have always said that no agreement has been reached. To that extent, there is no framework document. It is agreement on that that we have been seeking.
Secondly, I think that I have largely dealt with the right hon. Gentleman's second question. Over a long time, and particularly through my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, we have been in discussions with the right hon. Gentleman's representatives in his party, and we attach the greatest importance to what he has had to say.
Why? Because, among other reasons but predominantly, it is essential that we should find a means of providing a base for new discussions that will carry wide consent right across the communities. It is no good coming forward with things that will not provide wide consent.
I am afraid that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman—I am glad that I do not agree with him—in the third part of his question, when he refers to wrecking the framework concept. I do not follow him when he says that. It is important that Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government continue to seek that basis for agreement that I have described. We shall continue to do so.
It is important that I continue to listen to everything that the right hon. Gentleman says, particularly when it relates, in the last part of his question, to democratic principles because, in the joint declaration, democratic


principles are said by both Governments to underpin the future of Northern Ireland and, in particular, its constitutional status.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The fact that the statement has been made to the House today, and that the Prime Minister will address the nation tonight, proves that the content of the document is not to be challenged. Let us make that perfectly clear. The Secretary of State, in a broadcast and in his speech today in the House, has made it clear that it was the conclusions that people were drawing that he was challenging, not the content.
Having established the content, and having listened to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), and to what he said in a broadcast at lunchtime—that his party, which had taken part in the Ancram talks, had been sidelined and excluded—I put it to the Secretary of State: how does he think that this particular document will be a basis for any discussion, let alone agreement?
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about democracy, but the statement in the document makes it clear that the chairmen of committees in any new assembly can hold office only if they are a party to an all-Ireland body that takes power away from the House. It makes it a body that negotiates all European matters, including Commission proposals and initiatives. We know that power is going to Europe. Any power that I have as an elected representative from Northern Ireland will be completely taken away if an all-Ireland body deals with those European matters.
The document is an insult to the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. It bears out what I have been saying consistently in all this controversy. The Secretary of State cannot expect any self-respecting Unionist to sit down at a table if that is going to be on the agenda. That is the price he is paying to get a deal with Gerry Adams, the IRA and Dublin.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: At the end of his statement, the hon. Gentleman reverts to a familiar line of his—that there has been a deal with Gerry Adams and the IRA. I reiterate that there is no such deal.
The hon. Gentleman says at the outset that the content is not challenged, but he cannot have listened when I said that what I have seen in The Times newspaper are a few selectively lifted phrases from a very long document that has been used in the negotiations and that has not been agreed. Therefore, the first part of his assertion—if I may put it that way—is not sustained by the facts.
The hon. Gentleman effectively said that the concept of a framework document is destroyed and that there is no future life in what has been negotiated or discussed between the two Governments. I do not agree with that, for the reasons that I have already given to the House.
I do not accept that, in European matters, it is proposed that all power should be taken from the House, and that everything should be transferred to some north-south body. I reiterate to the hon. Gentleman and the House that absolutely nothing will come forward for the approval of the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum unless and until it has the broad and wide agreement of the political parties, which will include that of the hon. Gentleman.

That has to be taken into account. Consent is the foundation of everything that the two Governments are seeking to put to the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Secretary of State will recognise that the press leak shows that a fairly cynical political game is being played. It is also a very deadly game, because what is at stake is the peace that has been painstakingly created in Northern Ireland, not least by the Prime Minister.
Could the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that the peace process will not be derailed, either through threat of force of arms in Northern Ireland or threat of electoral strength in the House? Will he also confirm that it will be underpinned by the principle of consent as enunciated in the Downing street declaration, and that that principle of consent demands responsibilities from everyone in the north of Ireland if anything is going to work?
Does the Secretary of State recognise that we all have vetoes, and that if we all use them, there will not be a solution to our problem? Does he also agree that, if we are ever to solve the problem, it will be on the basis of consensus and agreement, and that threats of whatever type, be they voting threats or threats of arms, have no place in the seeking of agreement or consent?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there must be no derailment of the peace process. It offers the people of Northern Ireland the best prospect of a permanent end to violence and a permanent end to the instability that has plagued them for generations. It must be preserved. It must be preserved on the basis of all proper principles being observed. I am aware of no party in the House or elsewhere that wishes to see that process derailed.
Selective leaking of documents in the peace process and political process is doubtless calculated to secure its derailment. It is incumbent upon each and every one of us to see that that stratagem does not succeed. When the hon. Gentleman spoke about the principle of consent, he reiterated something that I mentioned a few moments ago. It is the very foundation of everything that we are seeking to achieve, and anything else would be a foundation of sand.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: If the framework document imposes nothing and its purpose is to generate debate, and if any agreement that may be reached will be tested by a referendum, will my right hon. and learned Friend do all he can to reassure those who are understandably shaken by the scandalous irresponsibility of The Times in printing extracts from a leaked document'?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with what he said. It imposes nothing. If the document is agreed, it will be offered to the parties for them to consider. It will not be imposed upon them. How could it be, given the basis of consent? My hon. Friend is right. I recognise the damage to confidence that has been done, and doubtless was intended to be done. I take on hoard what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Secretary of State agree that selective leaks are usually designed to induce a reaction, but that that reaction must not be allowed to deprive the people of Northern Ireland


of their opportunity to consider proposals that have been properly worked out and to exercise their vote on them in an atmosphere of peace?
When does the right hon. and learned Gentleman hope to add to that process by bringing forward the Government's own proposals for the elected assembly in Northern Ireland, which will come directly from the British Government? Will he bear it in mind that, whatever vagaries of arithmetic may affect the Government's consideration of matters outside Northern Ireland, he has for the continuance of the peace process and the delicate task on which he has embarked a substantial majority in the House?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said at the conclusion of his question. Of course, a reaction is intended by those who indulge in what I regard as the malicious and irresponsible strategy that we are discussing. It is very important that we continue—as I have assured the House we will—to seek with the Irish Government a basis for an understanding of the kind that I have described. I intend to continue to do that, and so, I know, does Mr. Spring. I believe that the whole House wishes us to do that.
The right hon. Gentleman asks when the British Government will come forward, as they have promised, with their own suggestions for the internal arrangements for the restoration of democratic responsibilities within Northern Ireland. The answer is that we would publish our proposals at exactly the same time as the joint proposals of the Governments would be published once agreement was reached, so that the entire package, something scarcely referred to in the story with which we are dealing, can be seen—the old strands 1, 2 and 3 of the talks process—and so that the people of Northern Ireland and the political parties can make an informed and balanced judgment of their worth.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. and learned Friend will agree that these are serious issues, as evidenced by the deaths of Tony Berry, Ian Gow, Robert Bradford and Airey Neave, who were among the thousands who died to stand up for democracy against use of violence. Does he also agree that some informed speculation would be welcome in The Times tomorrow as to who might have provided the newspaper with the partial information and why those involved would want it published? I do not mean to involve the newspaper but those who provided the information.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if those involved had given as much attention to what he has called the triple lock, it might have been easier for people to understand their motives?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The triple lock seems to me to be the key to confidence here, and I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has constantly reiterated the triple lock of people, parties and Parliament. That is what is meant by democracy. That is what we point to when we assert that we wish to impose, or seek to impose, nothing but simply to bring forward proposals—not something set in concrete when a declaration or agreement is signed between Governments, but simply proposals for people to look at.
As for speculation about who was responsible for the matter that we are discussing, that will take place without any encouragement from us.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Irish Government have come a considerable way to meet Unionist demands by virtually agreeing to the repeal or amendment of articles 2 and 3, and that any decision taken by the proposed new north-south body should be subject to the approval of both sides? Does he agree that the peace process is far too important an issue to be put at risk by threats of blackmail from any quarter or the Government's desire for Unionist votes for their own survival?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not think that questions or suggestions of blackmail and the like are particularly helpful when one is discussing the operation of the democratic process. That is the same as describing it as a "veto"—someone's view that happens to be the majority view is someone else's veto, or is regarded as such. That is not a helpful way of looking at an extremely important process in which we have been engaged for a long time.
We have been engaged in that process for a long time only because we have been asked to do so to help the parties find a way in which to take the risks inherent and get back round the table. Tempting though it is to follow the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) into a discussion of things that may have been on the agenda, and undoubtedly have been on the agenda, I shall not do so, for the very good reason that it would impede and hinder the resumption of this process, which has been undoubtedly damaged by what we are discussing this afternoon. I have to mitigate that damage.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The Times made the irresponsible allegation that Her Majesty's Government were absolutely neutral as to whether Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom or became part of a united Ireland. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this early opportunity to deny that accusation unambiguously?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Government have made their position perfectly clear about that. The maintenance of the position of Northern Ireland in the union is supported by a large majority of people living there. It looks as though it will continue to be supported by a majority of people living there for a very long time. The Prime Minister and I and others have indicated our personal pleasure that that is the case.
But what matters is the will of people living there. We are persuaders for agreement. We want to persuade the people of Northern Ireland to reach agreement on their future. I find it impossible to visualise anything on which they together, freely and without impediment, agree that the British Government would wish to stymie.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that nothing that has happened in the past 24 hours will cause the Government to resile from an approach which can assist the achievement of peace in Northern Ireland, and which almost certainly has the support of an overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members of the House?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also assure the House that, while we must all respect, as I certainly do, the rights of all right hon. and hon. Members, whether


from Great Britain or from Northern Ireland, to advance their views and protect their point of view, taking into account the safeguards that he has described to the House, there is no group of persons in the House who can prevent the Government from putting forward, when they publish their proposals, proposals which they believe will advance the prospect of peace in Ireland as a whole?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I certainly agree that there is no body of people in the country or in the House who can prevent the Government from doing what they consider right and prudent. I have made it clear that what is required is a solution that will carry the broad consent of the people right across Northern Ireland. I have made it clear that certain principles must be abided by—those which I have indicated today and which the Prime Minister has, from time to time, quite frequently, spelled out.
Those principles mean that we cannot propose things which will not carry the consent of the character that I have described. That is what it is about. It is no good looking for proposals which will not carry broad consent across the community. We will do our best to bring forward proposals that meet the principles that I have described and which will have a real prospect of helping the parties sit down and discuss these extremely important issues once again.

Mr. Barry Porter: While I join the general condemnation of The Times for printing bits of the document, I wonder who can produce this document, because the proposals that have been printed, self-evidently, will never be acceptable to those who represent the majority of opinion in Ulster, hon. Members on Opposition and Government Benches and, indeed, on the mainland. Who produced this document? Why was it produced in these circumstances? While I accept and welcome the view of the Secretary of State and of the Prime Minister that, in the end, the view of the majority in Ulster will prevail, why was the document ever produced in the first place?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have done my best to explain to the House why we are in that lengthy business of seeking to establish a framework document. It is because we were asked to do so to assist the parties in getting round the table again. As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I would with great respect invite him to wait until such time, if it arrives, as a document is agreed and is immediately published. Then, and then alone, will he be able to see its true meaning, balance and intention.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State will be aware that the constitutional nationalist parties from elsewhere in the United Kingdom have supported, and continue to offer support to, the Government in their attempt to ensure that a definitive peace is reached in Northern Ireland and throughout the whole of Ireland. In that spirit, may I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that the Government are in no way deflected from the courageous course on which they have embarked, and that they will not sacrifice tomorrow's lasting peace because of today's headlines?
Will he also assure us that the Government are well down the road to ensuring that a framework document will be available to all of us which can be debated openly and freely by elected Members of this place?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course we shall not be deflected from the search which I have described, and which I will not describe again. It is far too important for the lives and welfare of so many people in Northern Ireland, and more widely, for us to do that.
As soon as agreement is reached—if it is reached—there will be immediate publication, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised as long ago as last October, so that the people of Northern Ireland in particular, and people everywhere else, can consider the document. That will be the time for the parties to consider whether it is sufficient to get them around the table, and whether they wish to examine carefully the issues that it contains.

Mr. David Howell: Has my right hon. and learned Friend looked carefully at the cross-border bodies and all-Ireland arrangements that existed under the Unionist Government before 1972 and the fall of Stormont? If he has not, will he study them very carefully when he prepares his framework document? I believe that he may find them helpful.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Some time ago, I drew attention in several speeches in Northern Ireland to the fact that the principle is not new. Under the Stormont regime, there was at least one example—and I believe that there are more—of bodies which were put in place and were supported in order to make common cause in areas where there was a common interest. That was done without the slightest intention of diminishing sovereignty or impinging upon it. It was seen to make sense and to work.
If that approach is available in future, and it is supported by the parties and by the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum, I cannot think of a point of principle that should lead the British Government to say, "No, we are not going to do it."

Mr. William Ross: The Secretary of State told the House in his statement that he recognised some of the phrases published in The Times. Surely he should be more explicit and admit that he recognises every syllable in The Times as, later in his statement, he said that it was but part of a very long negotiating document. As that is so, will he also tell us whether the bits that have been published in The Times are those items which are still in contention between himself and Mr. Spring, and what exactly he has already agreed to?
Surely what is printed in The Times are the demands of the Irish Government which would lead inevitably to an all-Ireland republic, and well the Secretary of State knows that. Is it not clear, even to this Secretary of State, that the whole process of the framework is now so tainted and damaged that anything that emerges labelled "framework document" will immediately and inevitably be rejected by the Unionist population, because they will see it not as a framework but as a cage designed to limit their freedom


of movement so as to create an all-Ireland republic? Will the Government therefore take some good advice today, change course and seek another way forward?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: If it were the Government's intention in the negotiations that they have been carrying on to lead the people of Northern Ireland to an all-Ireland republic, we would indeed change course. However, I am not going to recommend that any course be changed, because that has not been our purpose. The hon. Gentleman should know that, because he has been told it often enough, together with all hon. Members.
It is not the purpose of the British Government to lead to a united Ireland, for the very good reason that it would not stand a dog's chance of receiving the consent that would be essential. The hon. Gentleman knows that. If I have not made it clear before, I make it clear yet again now. However, I have made it clear.
I am not going to be led into the premature publication of a document, and I am not going to say what is tentatively and contingently agreed and what is not agreed. Nothing in that document has received the consent of Her Majesty's Government. It remains to be agreed as a document. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir George Gardiner: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that certain lessons can be drawn from the events of the past 24 hours? They are, first, just how uncertain is the path to peace in Northern Ireland; secondly, that nothing can—I repeat, can—be done to impose a particular solution upon the people of Northern Ireland; and, thirdly, that perhaps a little more openness is called for on what is happening in the tortuous negotiations, if only to avoid misunderstanding in future.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. Of course the path to peace is uncertain. I do not think that we should have had a conflict of the horror and length that has disfigured Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom based upon Irish problems, for so long if it were otherwise. We must recognise that such things will happen, and that some extremely malign forces are at work and will make themselves felt from time to time, but we are not going to be deflected from our search.
Nothing can be done or will be done to impose a solution on the people of Northern Ireland. It would be idle to suppose that the United Kingdom Government can impose upon the people of Northern Ireland anything against their will. The history of Ireland, England and of the United Kingdom as a whole has been such as to make that abundantly clear. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made that clear. Even more important than that, both Governments—the Irish Government as well—made that clear in the Downing street declaration last year. It is idle to suppose that anything else would work. That is the case.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend about being more open and so on. It is very important to be open about the principles which will govern one's negotiations. It is absolutely impossible to be open at every stage that one has reached in continuing negotiations. That is the balance that we have to strike.

Mr. Roger Stott: The Secretary of State said that this is a sensitive time. I agree with him. The selective

leaking of the document is irresponsible and damaging. I share the view of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter)—it was disgraceful.
I recall that it was the Government's hope and intention to publish the framework documents some time last year. Obviously, with the Irish Government's difficulties at the end of December, the timetable slipped. Clearly it is important, if there is not to be the start of a vacuum in Northern Ireland, for the Government to produce the framework documents as quickly as possible. When will the Secretary of State be able to do just that?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of maintaining a momentum and not allowing a vacuum to develop. That is very important. I cannot tell him when or if agreement is going to be reached. As I indicated a little time ago, both Mr. Spring and I said at the end of our meeting on Thursday that work of an important kind had to be done. That remains the case.
Of course we want to see an early agreement so that there is early publication, the matter is out in the open, and we can carry it forward, but that does not rest with us alone. It would be wrong to put that ahead of the need to ensure that the principles that the Prime Minister has outlined so frequently are fulfilled.

Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that there is no question of any proposals or policies relating to Northern Ireland being established or constructed under a constitutional regional or all-Ireland framework within the legal aegis of the European Union?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Yes. The British Government have to remain loyal to their obligations, and they have to continue to assert their rights under the treaties. That will be the case, and my hon. Friend need not fear that which he set out in his question.
Similarly, it seems to make some sense if a local application of European policies—if they carry the wishes and consent of the people and parties—were to be put in place. I cannot go any further than that.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Is it not unfair of the Secretary of State to criticise The Times for bringing to the attention of the British public what the Government have been doing behind the scenes, when similar leaks appeared the previous week in Dublin newspapers? This morning, the Secretary of State said that we should all remain quiet and calm. Does he recognise that we are pleased that, within a few hours, he rejected his own advice, and decided to come before the House to make a statement, and that we are also pleased that the Prime Minister recognised the seriousness of the situation and has now decided to broadcast to the nation?
The Secretary of State referred to all-Ireland bodies with executive powers, and not simply to cross-border bodies created by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Does he recognise the distinction between those two institutions? Does he know that the Ulster Unionists support cross-border bodies with executive powers, founded and created by a democratically elected Assembly in Northern Ireland, but that we oppose all-Ireland institutions being imposed upon us?
Does he recognise that peace in Northern Ireland does not just depend on having Sinn Fein on board, but on the majority of people of Northern Ireland, of which the Ulster Unionist party is a leading factor, being on board?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hope that I have made it clear that I regard it as essential that any proposal that is put forward is likely to carry the consent of the broad majority of people in Northern Ireland. That is fundamental.
The right hon. Gentleman says that I have been critical of The Times, and that I should be equally critical of other newspapers. I am critical of those who originate a leak with a purpose which, I believe, is absolutely self-evident. It is not really for me to comment on journalistic practice, and I shall not do so. The right hon. Gentleman should be concerned about those who, for mischievous and destructive purposes, make leaks of this character, and I deplore the use of selective and distorting extracts.
The right hon. Gentleman reminds me that today I said that I thought that the people of Northern Ireland would welcome some steadiness and calm. I know that that can sound irritating or condescending, but I not intend it to be in the slightest. I hope that the people will listen to what is said by the Government, what has been said by the Prime Minister, what will be said by him tonight and what I have said this afternoon, and that they will wait until such time as a document is published and offered to the parties.
We do not seek to impose a document. I find it odd to he criticised for being other than calm when I have come before the House to explain what the Government have been doing and our response to the leak as I have tried to do this afternoon.

Rev. William McCrea: Once again, the House has been told to wait for the publication of a document. I remember a previous matter—the Anglo-Irish Agreement—when the House was told likewise. Yet last week, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic met a representative of murderers, Gerry Adams, and we were told after that meeting that they discussed matters relating to the framework document. We were also told that other meetings would be held with the SDLP to discuss matters relating to the framework document. Interestingly enough, Unionists once again must await the final issuing of a document before gaining any knowledge of its contents. It reeks of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Hon. Members talk about The Times being scandalously irresponsible. Surely it is those who drew up such proposals, which do not stand a "dog's chance" of succeeding, who ought to be condemned. If they are civil servants, surely the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland must carry the final responsibility for their actions.
Lastly, as the Prime Minister has consistently come out fighting for England, Scotland and Wales to remain a vital part of the United Kingdom and said that the Government could not countenance a diminution of that union in any shape or form, why do not the Government state unequivocally today that they desire Northern Ireland and would not countenance a change in its position as an

integral part of the United Kingdom? That would certainly assist, but I am sure that we shall wait a long time before we get such a statement.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall not play the game of hiding behind civil servants. I recognise the strength of feeling with which the hon. Gentleman speaks, and I know of the appalling experience that he and his family underwent when his home was attacked last year. But I shall not play his game of saying that all this is down to civil servants. I wish to make it perfectly clear that negotiations that have taken place over a long time have been under ministerial direction.
The hon. Gentleman says that the Irish Prime Minister has discussed with others matters relating to the framework document. We have discussed over a long period matters relating to the framework document with representatives of political parties in this House. That was right, and we shall continue to do so. We have not felt it right, however, to disclose in mid-negotiation the precise text which we are in the course of negotiating, because that is not how future negotiation would prosper.
Lastly, the hon. Gentleman asked why we do not say in Northern Ireland what we say in Scotland. That is exactly what the Prime Minister has said. In Scotland, he said that one cannot keep a nation within a union against its will, and precisely the same argument applies in Northern Ireland. I suggest that the sensible thing to do is say that whatever appeals to and is demanded by the majority of people living in Northern Ireland must determine what happens there. That is what not just the British Government but the Irish Government have said.

Dr. Joe Hendron: Does the Secretary of State accept that, because of the leak in The Times today, the necessity for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make a statement to the House this afternoon, and the fact that the Prime Minister will address the nation later this evening, there is bound to be disquiet and apprehension in both communities in Northern Ireland?
Does he therefore agree that it is important that politicians on both sides—not just in the House but from both communities in the north of Ireland—exercise restraint and absolute responsibility? Will he further state, as he did before, that, no matter what is in the final framework document, the principles as expressed in the Downing Street declaration will continue to be the political bible for the people of Northern Ireland?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I got into trouble this afternoon for suggesting that there should be calm and steadiness, so I shall allow the hon. Gentleman's words to speak for themselves. It is important that people should encourage agreement, if that can be reached. Nothing will work in a Northern Ireland with the character that we describe unless it is based on consent and agreement. It is because we are so determined to do all that can properly he done to prevent a recurrence of the violence that has disfigured Northern Ireland for so long that we shall not he deflected from our course of trying to secure the agreement that I described by the events that we are discussing this afternoon.

Sir Nicholas Scott: My right hon. and learned Friend should recognise that he not only deserves but has the support of the vast majority of people in the House and the country for the work that he is putting into


the enterprise to which he has set his hand. If that enterprise succeeds, it has the promise of lifting from the backs of the people of Northern Ireland the burden of terrorism that they have borne for so long. I wish him well—I am sure that the House does—in the enterprise to which he has set his hand.
At the end of the day, the head, the hoof and the heart of that enterprise is consent by the people of Northern Ireland. The buck will stop there: they will have the right to say yea or nay to the outcome of my right hon. and learned Friend's undertaking. We all wish him well in his endeavours.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who served for so long in Northern Ireland. I appreciate what he has said, and I agree entirely with his comments about the paramount importance of consent.

Mr. David Trimble: Does the Secretary of State realise that the credibility of this morning's story in The Times is greatly enhanced by the fact that it is entirely consistent with the leaks that have emanated from the Irish Government in recent weeks? Does he realise that its credibility is also enhanced by the fact that his statement today contains nothing which is in any way inconsistent with what was said in the story? Furthermore, the story is corroborated by the statement that his hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made during the most recent Northern Ireland questions.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman further agree that it is totally disingenuous to say that there will be no joint authority when it is proposed that legislation from Westminster will go over the heads of the Northern Ireland assembly to set up a body which people will have a legal duty to attend, with default and enforcement powers if they fail to carry out the Irish Government's will? That is joint authority and it cannot be described as anything else.
The Secretary of State's failure to be frank both in his previous contacts and today—particularly his prevarication in answering the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux)—robs him of credibility.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not follow what the hon. Gentleman said about there being legislation over the heads of the Northern Ireland assembly. There will be no Northern Ireland assembly unless and until there is

legislation, and there will be no legislation unless and until we secure the agreement of the parties and of the people of Northern Ireland. I thought that the hon. Gentleman, with his democratic credentials, would welcome that.
I also thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome proposals for establishing a Northern Ireland assembly which thereafter would provide the staff to discharge the functions of a north-south body, if that is what the people have shown they want in a referendum, and it is what the parties want also. That is the position.
If we can achieve agreement to restore democratic responsibility to Northern Ireland—again, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that—I hope that he will then encourage his right hon. and hon. Friends at least to discuss the principles in the document.

Mr. Trimble: indicated dissent.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I do not see why he should be so reluctant to discuss the issues that are raised in that way. If he is reluctant to do so, that must remain his position. However, I think that many people will regret his decision.

Sir John Gorst: Have my right hon. and learned Friend and his Cabinet colleagues learnt a wider lesson from the events of the last 24 hours? While it is obvious that the democratic process cannot operate satisfactorily without a free press, is it not the case that those newspapers which peddle half-truths—seemingly for circulation purposes—perform no valuable task in the public interest? Was my right hon. and learned Friend given the opportunity at any stage to point out to The Times the damage which would flow from the half-truths about which it intended to write?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I was not given that opportunity. I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was given an indication very late last night that something of that character would be published, but the content was not disclosed.
I do not think that I shall say more than I have said to the House already this afternoon in answering my hon. Friend. The partial and distorting publication of parts of the document which have come into the hands of the newspaper is damaging. However, I think that the principal damage is done by those who, for whatever purpose, seek to make public something of this character at this stage of complex, delicate and rather dangerous negotiations.

Points of Order

Sir Roger Moate: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter of some importance—the selection of Members to serve on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill Select Committee. I understand that it has always been the custom, if not the rule, of the House that such Committees be seen to be as objective as possible. That is presumably why Members representing Kent, for instance, were told that they could not serve on the Committee, even though their constituencies were not directly affected.
I have learnt to my surprise, however, that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—I notified her that I would be mentioning her name; I also notified the other hon. Member whom I shall mention later—had been appointed to the Committee, even though she stated, clearly and frankly, on Second Reading that her borough was directly affected by the high speed rail link. One can imagine the embarrassment that would be caused if a petition was received from her borough. She will not be seen as totally objective. No doubt she would be a splendid member of the Committee, but her membership of it hardly seems to conform with my understanding of the traditions of the House.
Even more surprisingly, another Member has been appointed to serve on the Committee, even though on Second Reading he spoke robustly about certain points relating to important aspects of the Bill that are likely to be the subject of petitioning. I refer to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). We all know him to be a splendid Member of the House, but on this subject he is about as impartial as I am. He certainly does not seem capable—on this issue—of fitting the mould of independence, impartiality and open-mindedness that has long been required by the traditions of this House.
It seems to conflict with the customs, if not the rules, of the House that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East should be a member of the Select Committee. Decisions of the Committee of Selection are not debatable on the Floor of the House, so presumably the rules have been observed—if not the practice and custom.
I therefore seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, on what steps can be taken to ensure that the Committee is selected on the usual criteria of the openmindedness and objectivity that we have come to expect in respect of all private and hybrid Bills.

Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has had to say, and have done so with great interest. I am afraid, however, that I am not in a position to assist him.
In the first place, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate was appointed to the Committee by the decision of the House last Friday, 27 January. It was at that time that an objection could have been raised.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East was appointed by the Committee of Selection at its meeting last Wednesday. The House has delegated this power to the Committee of Selection, and such appointments do not subsequently come before the House for confirmation. I am therefore unable to take the matter further, as the House gives me no authority in these matters to do so. But I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously; I shall give it some thought for future occasions.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No, I am sorry: I cannot take a further point of order. I have ruled the point of order already. I know that the hon. Gentleman is equally concerned, but once I have given a ruling, it is not my intention to go further. I have done the best I can. I shall not let the matter rest there, but I want to give it further consideration.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. What advice can be given to witnesses who come before Select Committees? I have in mind Sir lain Vallance, who yesterday told the Select Committee that he worked harder than junior doctors do. He then immediately retracted the remark outside the House. Does he not owe an apology to the Select Committee, and more particularly to the junior doctors?

Madam Speaker: I hope that the gentleman in question worked extremely hard when he appeared before the Committee, and that the Committee made him sweat.

Births and Deaths Registration (Amendment)

Mrs. Angela Knight: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 in connection with the procedures relating to the registration of deaths in England and Wales.
The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 allows a death to be registered only in the district in which it occurs. My Bill proposes that that procedure be modified, so that the necessary details and declaration of death may be made with the registrar of any district. That registrar would then forward the details to the district where the death occurred for registration to take place.
That which I propose may seem to be a small, superficial and rather obscure change, but it is one that would make a substantial difference to the difficulties that some find themselves in now when a death occurs. The difficulties add to the distress at a time of grief.
Last summer, a family of mother, father and baby daughter—all constituents of mine—went on holiday to Skegness. One morning, the parent woke up to find their seven-month-old baby daughter dead in her cot. All parents will know how such a death, and fear of such a death, worries them. We all know how many times we check our sleeping babies to ascertain that they are still breathing. Surely we can all imagine what the mother and father felt at that fear becoming a reality.
Given the suddenness of the baby's death, the coroner who covers Skegness was notified. He directed that a post mortem should be performed by the specialist paediatric pathologist who is based at the Queen's medical centre at Nottingham, which is a hospital of considerable renown. It is one that is used extensively by Erewash, and it was therefore close to the home of the family.
The mother and father returned from Skegness to Nottingham, the post mortem was undertaken, cot death was confirmed, and arrangements for the funeral were set in hand. It was only then that the parents found that, to register their daughter's death, one of them had to return in person to Skegness. That is the requirement of the law as it stands. The 200-mile round trip was bad enough, but having to revisit the place of the tragedy added to the grief that my constituents were already experiencing.
Such a procedure can be changed. One way would be to allow the registration of the death to take place in any district. Although that has the immediate attraction of simplicity, it would cause other complications, about which registrars and coroners have expressed their

concern. If the present system continues without change, however, it will inevitably continue to add unnecessary upset to many people each year.
My Bill would allow the necessary documents required for death registration to be received by any registrar, who would then forward them to the appropriate district. My constituents would have been able to go to Nottingham, Derby or Ilkeston. The documents would then be sent by post, fax or electronic mail to Skegness. Thus, while maintaining the continuity of the place of registration, the parents of the baby would at least have had the process made emotionally and physically easier for them.
The 1990 White Paper on registration contained proposals for change similar to those that are set out in the Bill. The White Paper met with approval from doctors, coroners and registrars. The Derby registrar and coroner, whose districts cover Erewash, have expressed support for the changes that I propose. I am grateful to them for their assistance and advice as I am to the registrar of Ilkeston. The Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths has advised me of its support. It was my constituents' general practitioner, who wrote to me initially about the case to which I have referred asking for a change in the law, who prompted the Bill.
The mother of the baby girl said to me two weeks ago, "Make my case public." She added, "I will do whatever is necessary, so that no one else finds themselves in the situation that I did." I agree with her.
The House is in a position to do whatever is necessary. We spend much time on the great affairs of state, as we have this afternoon, and rightly so. Yet it is often the smaller things of life that most affect, for good or ill, people's lives.
I am proposing a small change. The Bill is only a modest measure. However, the small change could make a significant difference to many people. The Bill would change the registration process so that no longer would it add to people's hurt at a time of great personal distress. Instead, the procedure would help them. That is why I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Angela Knight, Sir Timothy Sainsbury, Sir Ivan Lawrence, Mr. James Clappison, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. John Greenway and Mr. David Lidington.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT)

Mrs. Angela Knight accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 in connection with the procedures relating to the registration of deaths in England and Wales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 February, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

Orders of the Day — Local Government Finance

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Secretary of State to move the Government motions, I must announce that Madam Speaker has put a 10-minute restriction on all speeches except those made by Front-Bench spokesmen and the spokesman for the Liberal Democratic party.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 161), which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the Special Grant Report (No. 12) (House of Commons Paper No. 162), which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 163), which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
Our proposals this year are rigorous, as they need to be if local government is to play its part in fighting inflation and to increase prosperity and jobs in commerce and industry. They are also, inevitably, more complex this year because of the establishment of the new police authorities. We have worked with local government to minimise any turbulence resulting from that change, and I am particularly grateful for the practical help that local authority associations continue to give, even where we may differ on the political judgments that have to be made.
On 1 September, I issued my settlement proposals for consultation. They included the total provision for local authority spending, the central support for that expenditure and my proposals for calculating standard spending assessments. I also announced provisional capping criteria. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced his proposals for police grant on the same day. Since then, my colleagues and I have met many delegations from local authorities and received many written representations.
We considered carefully all the points that were made during the consultation. My final decisions in respect of grants and notional amounts are embodied in the reports before the House. Of course, final decisions on capping criteria are taken after local authorities have decided their budgets.
Local authorities account for about a quarter of Government spending. Any Government who are serious about controlling public expenditure must, therefore, take real account of what councils spend.
I announced on 1 December my proposal for total standing spending for England for 1995–96 of £43.51 billion. I hope that the House will recognise just how large that figure is and how important, therefore, it is in the general consideration of the health of the economy. It included the English element of police grant, which is distributed on a formula basis in England and Wales. In the light of consultation—the details of which I shall come to later—we have decided to adjust slightly the

balance of police funding between England and Wales, with the result that the final TSS figure for England for 1995–96 will be £43.507 billion. That represents an increase of £843 million—or 2 per cent.—compared with last year's figure. It includes £647.6 million transitional community care special grant.
Leaving aside the increase in provision for community care, my proposals still amount to an increase of just under 1 per cent. in provision year on year. The total aggregate external finance for England will be £34.686 billion. The revenue support grant element of that total will be £18.314 billion.
We have had to make tough decisions on all areas of public spending this year, and this settlement is no exception, but I believe that, seen against the background of low inflation, low pay settlements and the scope for efficiency, the provision is fair and realistic.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: How can the settlement be fair to school children, parents and teachers in Bolsover and in other parts of Derbyshire, when the level per pupil in Surrey is £272 higher than in Derbyshire and when the figure in Hertfordshire is £248 higher than in Derbyshire? That means that if teachers get more than a 1.5 per cent. pay increase, there will be reductions in staff and schools will suffer even more. On top of that, the Minister told Derbyshire that, if it spends more than £550 million, it will be capped, so there is no way out for the children, parents and teachers and others who use its services. Why does not the Secretary of State change the criteria and stop favouring people in the south? Why does he not look after those in the north as well?

Mr. Gummer: Spending per pupil has increased by nearly 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979. We are spending considerably more on every child than we did then.
The figures are decided according to a formula that is discussed in detail and thrashed out with local authority organisations. At the very time when the hon. Gentleman asks for more money for Derbyshire, other counties are asking for more for themselves; but they admit that a common formula that is as objective as humanly possible cannot direct money towards specific councils. Every county would like more money, but I fear that they cannot give good enough reasons.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked a perfectly respectable question, and I want to answer it fully.
Derbyshire has a considerable advantage as, unlike many other counties, it does not have a long history of lean administration. Its budget includes many areas in which other counties have already found ways of saving money. Derbyshire, perhaps of all counties, will be able to examine its overheads and expenditure carefully with the aim of helping school children directly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to assist his council.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Iain Mills: You acknowledge in correspondence that Solihull loses out as a result of the changes in education standard spending assessment methodology. In the light of what you have just said—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that we do not use personal pronouns.

Mr. Mills: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How much care did the Secretary of State take in calculating SSA for councils such as Solihull, which, unlike Derbyshire—

Mr. Bill Olner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Mr. Mills: The councils to which I refer have an extremely good record on cost-effectiveness. The Secretary of State says that there has been a redistribution of funds—

Mr. Olner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) has had quite enough time to ask a simple question.

Mr. Gummer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the Secretary of State bear with me for a moment? I will take the point of order.

Mr. Olner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right for so many Conservative Members to seek to intervene with what appear to be prepared scripts when many of them may not be called later?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a democratic Chamber. The Chair does not control the number of hon. Members who seek to intervene; whether the Secretary of State gives way is entirely up to him.

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say that I have a piece of paper relating to every authority in the country, as many hon. Members may ask direct questions and all of them will be serious.
I examined Solihull's position very carefully. I do the same in regard to every authority, particularly those whose case hon. Members wish to put to me. As I have said, about 100 different groups have asked me specific questions. I cannot see any aspect of the objective methodology bearing on Solihull that gives me cause to investigate whether it could immediately be altered. However, the small but nevertheless important amount that is available for education in Solihull gives rise to considerable concern. I have told Solihull authority and a number of other Conservative and Labour-controlled authorities that I shall carefully consider their fears about the methodology when we decide with local authority associations what changes I can make in the coming year. I cannot do so at the moment because there is nothing to suggest that the methodology has been improperly applied. If it had been, I could have a look at it, but I cannot look a0t a particular authority on its own.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I should like to make some progress and thereafter give way as much as I can. I am trying to

make a fairly short speech to allow time for hon. Members to ask questions. I know that that is unusual for me, but I shall try to answer as many points as I can.
I have said that the settlement will allow most authorities to increase their spending year on year. [Interruption.] It will allow them to increase their spending, but the difficulty is that most of them would like to increase it by more. That is a difficult issue.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) as she was the first to rise in the area of the Liberal Benches.

Ms Liz Lynne: Is the Secretary of State aware that Rochdale will lose £163,000 in the community care grant, over and above the other cuts in community care and in education. What is the council supposed to do? Is it supposed to cut services or put up charges?

Mr. Gummer: It should first look at the efficiency of its services. The fact that the hon. Lady thinks that there are only two options—to put up the price or reduce the service—shows that she has not considered the issue. I do not want to go too far along this line, but I may have to give some painful examples.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a great many complaints from authorities about underfunding are nothing more than a cynical attempt to dodge responsibility for their failure to manage resources properly? Does he further agree that one of the worst examples of this is Labour-Liberal controlled Suffolk county council? Since taking control in May 1993, that group has splurged £10 million of resources on such loony left fripperies as the appointment of an equal opportunities officer, the payment of councilors—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to all hon. Members to be brief. I have already had to announce a 10-minute restriction on speeches. There is now a one-minute restriction on interventions.

Mr. Gummer: I am tempted to take a particular path. As I drove home at the weekend, I noticed that Suffolk county council had put up a series of new yellow signs, which are extensive in their vulgarity and cost. Upon the signs, the council had put the name of the village and underneath it put another notice stating "village" in case people did not know that they were passing through one. There is no doubt that Suffolk county council has shown by its actions that it has spent money that could more easily and properly have been spent on police and education.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall continue with my speech and then, to be fair, I shall give way to an Opposition Member.
The Audit Commission regularly finds ways in which local authorities can save money through efficiency. The best authorities are quick to follow its recommendations.


In particular, I hope that all authorities will pay heed to the report on white collar pay in local government, and ensure that unnecessary bureaucracy is weeded out.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that any increase in something that is already sadly deficient is not sufficient? In Newham, which, as he knows, is statistically the most deprived borough in the country, we are £10 million short through the lack of an interest payment on the standard spending assessment that has been approved by the Government. We have £7 million less for housing and we could receive another £25 million if Newham were an inner-London authority. Will he tell his friends in the Treasury, who presumably produced the formula, that that is unjust and is not up to the standards, as he knows, of even the Old Testament, let alone the new? Will he tell them to sin less next year?

Mr. Gummer: I listened with great care to Newham's case on whether it should be an inner or outer-London authority. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I listened with concern and, as far as one is allowed in what I suppose is inelegantly referred to as a quasi-judicial position, with sympathy in an attempt to see whether I could meet its wish. The hon. Gentleman's position, however, is not entirely supported. Other Labour boroughs in London have made it clear that they would be extremely annoyed if past action by Newham council were rewarded at the expense of more efficient local councils.
There are some prime examples in London of where savings can be achieved. I note, for example, that the average number of non-manual staff in central services is 3.46 per 1,000 in inner-London boroughs, but 7.7 per 1,000 in the London borough of Tower Hamlets. Savings could be made there and applied to what is accepted as a less than adequate education service.

Mr. Michael Spicer: On the question of efficient versus inefficient councils, is there not a case for reconsidering the scrapping of capping, so that taxes increase in local authorities that are inefficient, clearly showing that responsibility lies with those authorities, rather than with central Government?

Mr. Gummer: I find that view extremely attractive for this reason: the capping mechanism was introduced because, in some areas, people were unable to pay the high costs of administrations, which, in all fairness, were mainly Labour controlled. They found themselves in terrible difficulty. As a resident of then Labour-controlled Ealing, I was one of those people who saw exactly what happened when people were suddenly faced with enormous bills. Tower Hamlets supports 7.7 non-manual staff in central services per 1,000. If we compare that with, for example, Wandsworth, which supports fewer than two per 1,000 of those staff, we understand why Tower Hamlets charges its often poor residents large sums of money. A real problem exists. The capping regime operates to protect those people. I have come down on that matter, not least because, if we add it all up, local government spends so high a proportion of what the

nation makes that the Government may be blamed, and it would have a serious effect on the Government economic's policy.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I should get on with my speech, but, to be fair, I shall give way to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans).

Mr. John Evans: The Secretary of State consistently insists that the methodology that he adopts for the fixing of grant is fair. He will be aware that the council tax for a band A property in St. Helens is £652, and that it is £245 for a Band A property in Westminster. Does he ascribe that huge difference to the efficiency of Westminster and to the enormous grants that it received, or does he ascribe it to the inefficiency of St. Helens council? If he ascribes it to the latter, will he get that piece of paper out, stand at the Dispatch Box, and tell me so?

Mr. Gummer: The standard spending assessments are worked out as clearly as possible according to criteria that we have discussed long and loud with local authorities. If St. Helens spent as far below its SSA as Westminster, it would have an even lower council tax. It has a high council tax because it is a high spender. St. Helens should learn from Westminster's efficiency. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is laughing. He wants to laugh because he does not want us to be reminded of the efficiency of his borough of Camden. Camden has the second highest external debt per capita in the country. Its total debt has increased by 14 per cent. in the past five years. A recent district auditor's first report revealed that Camden had a debt of £50 million rather than a surplus of £18 million, which its internal addition had suggested. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has the effrontery to giggle despite representing a Labour-controlled authority with such a record.

Mr. Frank Dobson: The Secretary of State talks about Camden having a £50 million debt. Will he refer to his Department's documents rather than articles in The Daily Telegraph? Will he confirm that Camden is in dispute with him and his officials about debts owed to it of £38 million on the housing revenue account because it says that it is not being treated in the same way as other councils? Will he confirm that Camden has commenced legal proceedings against the Department but has stayed them until Ministers have had an opportunity to respond?

Mr. Gummer: I will confirm that in 1991 Camden forgot a loan repayment of more than £24 million, which meant that, in many cases, rents rose by a third. I shall quote from someone who is not noted in his professional life for doing other than supporting a range of Labour authorities. I shall do so although I deprecate some of the attacks made on people by turning their perfectly proper professional behaviour into a political issue. Andrew Arden said:
the standards applicable to dealing in vast sums of money have been found wanting: it is as if pockets of what I can only describe of entrenched amateurism have been allowed to prevail.
Camden could save at least £2 million every year if its staff working hours were increased to the local government norm. Camden's members services unit,


which is open only to Labour members of Camden council, costs £143,000 a year. For every £5 spent on housing repairs in Camden, £1 is lost in administrative costs. That compares to an average of 30p in inner-London boroughs as a whole, and that average is pushed up by authorities such as Camden. Just in case it has been missed, I should say that Camden's grant to the Camden lesbian centre in 1994–95 will be £44,228. No wonder the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras giggles. The only people in Camden who do not giggle are those who have to pay the bill for such incompetence. Those who think that the Labour party would make a Government should remember what has happened to Camden under Labour's control.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he and his officials are in dispute with the borough of Camden about whether the Department owes Camden £38 million?

Mr. Gummer: When the hon. Gentleman confirms publicly each and every one of the facts—not disputes—that I have just given and dissociates himself from his council, I will be happy to look at his point.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I must get on. There is an equal amount of objection on both sides of the Chamber.
I have given only one or two examples culled at random from what could have been a much larger list. We can do without the ritual parade every time we ask authorities to take the same tough decisions on their costs as the Government are taking and that the private sector always has taken. During the recession, private companies made cuts and they have now emerged leaner and fitter to lead Britain into a new export-led recovery.
Local government must ensure that it reduces overmanning, takes out tiers of management and uses contracting out as a means of better service delivery. Many efficient authorities are already taking such measures and, in my criticisms of particular authorities, I hope that local government in general will recognise that I honour the many local authority officers and members who have done increasingly well in meeting the needs of their areas in a lean and fit way.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent speech so far. Does he share my disgust and fury at the antics of Liberal-controlled Devon county council? It is spreading terror among 300 teaching staff by telling them that they are all to be sacked because of the Government's rate settlement and it is making old people fear that they will be put out on the street in the cold. In fact—I should like the Secretary of State to confirm this—the amount that Devon will receive next year is more than this year and the education grant is twice as high as the national average. Will he tell Devon county council that it should get rid of some of its 30,000 staff. It has more staff than the entire bureaucracy of Brussels. Will he ensure that it does something—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was sincere when I said that interventions should be under a minute.

Mr. Gummer: The increase in Devon's education SSA is about twice as high as the average for the counties. Its staff numbers have increased by more than 2 per cent. In

one year. A county in that position should not frighten people. It should look at its own internal arrangements and find ways of saving money so that it can be spent on the front line—on those who really need it.
It is important to take this seriously. I have with me the telephone directory of Cornwall county council—I am not just dealing with inner London. It is a pretty big list and its tone sums up what we need to look at carefully. For example, on the page that says, "Chief Executives Office" it lists numbers for the chief executive, assistant chief executive, assistant chief executive and a third assistant chief executive. I then see two secretarial staff, five support staff, three press and public relations staff—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that it was impolite to point.

Mr. Gummer: I think that Opposition Members may have been trying to ensure that I address the Chair directly. I apologise if I did not do so. It enables me to say directly to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there are also five members of staff whose only job is to deal with the local government review and to send out various documents to frighten people about what might happen if they were to lost control of Cornwall. Many local authorities have spent large sums of money advertising themselves.
I have to be careful because another case from Cleveland is now in the courts. The House has passed legislation and debated its results yet some authorities have spent vast sums of ratepayers' money not only on advertising their superiority over others but on frightening people against possible changes. They then fight in the courts even beyond the point at which, when the judgment is read, anyone spending his own money would feel that the case against him had been proven.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I give way to the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), who rose first.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving way. He will be aware that Warwickshire recently received a very good auditors' report and that the only time that it has been poll tax capped recently was when it was under Conservative control. However, parents in Warwickshire are facing larger classes for their children and the sacking of 200 teachers in the county. This issue has united Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors in condemning the Government for the way in which they have calculated the SSA. Warwickshire spends 9 per cent. more on education than allowed for in the Government's education SSA. If it is to comply with the Government's requirements, Warwickshire will have to cut £10 million from its education budget. That is not acceptable. What is the Secretary of State's message to the angry parents of Warwickshire who do not want larger classes or a decline in education standards?

Mr. Gummer: Whatever Warwickshire councillors say, they have not been able to convince any other county that the methodology is wrong and that Warwickshire should have a special arrangement. The hon. Gentleman is saying that because Warwickshire has not found a way to deal with these matters as


effectively as other counties it should have a special arrangement. The system does not allow for that—perfectly properly—whether Warwickshire is run by the Conservatives, the Liberals or Labour. Were it to do so, there would be no objectivity.
I know Warwickshire and I know many of the people who have come to put their case to me. I believe that Warwickshire will need to examine its spending pattern carefully. It needs to get its priorities right and aim money where it is most needed. Many counties are providing extremely good education without any more resources than those that Warwickshire has.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lancashire has 13 per cent. surplus places in its secondary schools, many of which are in Labour areas so the county council is scared stiff to touch them? However, were it to remove them, there would be more money to spend on other schools. Moreover, Lancashire spends £93 more for a resident in a county home than for one in a private home. No one wishes the county homes to close but we can ask that they should be as efficiently run as private sector homes. If they were, there would be a cool £10.8 million to spend on schools, home care services or some other purpose.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has been patient in trying to intervene. Lancashire has one of the highest proportions of staff per head in England, which suggests that there are ways for it to make improvements in addition to those that she has suggested.
It is very easy for county councils and district councils to tell the electorate that they can do nothing but cut the education budget or any other services of great importance. It is important for the House to remind people that if the priorities are right, if money is put where it is most needed and if central spending is reduced, in most cases substantial savings can be found.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a moment to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). The areas where the difficulties are greatest are those where there has been a tradition of prudence and care and where councils feel that they are coming to the end of what they can do. I have examined those areas particularly carefully, but very few of those with a tradition of prudence and care are represented by the Labour party.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Warwickshire is asking not for special treatment but for a fair deal. Our frustration is that year after year after year our representations appear to be ignored. It is no surprise that in a zero-sum game other local authorities are not interested in easing Warwickshire's position. If we care about the quality of our democracy, we should be strengthening the independence and scope of elected local government for which a strong mechanism of accountability now exists through the council tax. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our future quality of life, as well as our economic competitiveness, depends to a large extent on whether we invest in our schools? I

therefore very much regret the Government's proposals for capping and SSAs—certainly as they bite in Warwickshire—which run counter to these purposes.

Mr. Gummer: I agree that education is at the heart of the nation's needs. That is why we have increased spending per pupil by nearly 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979. The difficulty, however, is that if the total spending is part of the total assessment of Government spending, when one local authority spends significantly in excess of what is available to other local authorities, it has a direct effect on us all because of its playback into the nation's economy.
Other honourable Members have to take into account the fact that Warwickshire is spending 4 per cent. above its SSA on education. It will have an increase of 1.2 per cent., which is above the average for all counties. I was concerned about Warwickshire's claim, which is based not on the particularity of Warwickshire but on the belief that the way in which the system works does not give adequate representation to factors that might colour our assessment. Because of that, I shall look closely with the local authority associations at Warwickshire's concerns next year. I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and they lead me back to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). One or two other authorities have believed consistently that the mechanisms seem to have failed their particular problems, and I shall reconsider their cases carefully.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I must get on, but I shall give way first to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).

Mr. Tom King: Is not my right hon. Friend right to say that every one of us has concerns about the current methodology? The right way to decide next year's determination is with local authority associations and the silliest way is to take the advice of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who said that this was an extremely important debate but who has not even bothered to turn up. He was encouraging some Somerset Members of Parliament to vote against the motion. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that were the House not to approve it, there would be no funds available for local government and no ability to pay and local authorities would not be able to make a rate determination or issue demands? Would not that cost the whole of local government a considerable sum of money?

Mr. Gummer: I confirm all that my right hon. Friend says. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is not here. I had thought, from all the letters that he had written to Members of Parliament of his own party and others, that he may have found it possible to come to this important debate. Is the matter important only in his constituency and not in the House?
I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Yeovil has noticed that if there was a redetermination, it would be unlikely that Somerset would have benefited more. Indeed, the likelihood would have been that other counties would have noticed that Somerset had received a 2.5 per cent. increase in its education standard spending assessment, which is well over twice the county average; that in personal social services, it had a 2 per cent.


increase, which is considerably more than the county average; and that in other services it had a 4.6 per cent. increase.
It appears to me that in all the measurements, Somerset has done significantly better than many other counties. Yet the right hon. Member for Yeovil has rushed immediately to frighten people. The attempt by Liberal Democrats to frighten people as part and parcel of their party-politicking is the worst aspect of a party which has little to commend itself in general.

Mr. David Alton: I will not enter into the argument in which the right hon. Gentleman has just engaged. May I invite him back to the subject of north-west England for a moment? He will consider, as I do, that there is plenty of scope for savings in cities such as Liverpool and that there is certainly scope for greater efficiency. However, does not he also recognise that the formula and the way in which it has been calculated is a great cause of concern? After all, if the European Union grants a city such as Liverpool objective 1 status, it is slightly bizarre that the city should be a long way down the league table of local authorities as listed for deprivation. Therefore, will he specifically look at its SSA for social services and the need of children? He will have received representations this year and last, and I hope that he will look at those seriously because children are at risk and will suffer deeply if that specific aspect is not addressed.

Mr. Gummer: I have, of course, looked very carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has said. I tried to look across to see whether there was something about the new method which was deleterious to Liverpool, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. As far as one can compare the last years of the previous system before 1979 and the years since, the gap between what Liverpool gained with what the authorities which are often compared with it gained was significantly larger. So that problem has been delineated before.
There are difficulties in places where the population is falling, for example. I have looked at the matter carefully. Many of the things that we have taken into account this time have been helpful. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the use of unemployment as one of the elements to consider has been helpful. That is something for which the associations asked and which was denied them by previous Governments. I am pleased that we have brought in that element. I shall look again, but, after all, Liverpool is third in the north-west as I understand it. It has significant resources, but I shall be happy to look specifically at the points that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I must continue for a moment. I shall allow hon. Members to intervene, but another paragraph would be helpful.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has reminded us that we have to strike a balance between the proper responsibility of central Government to the economy of the country as a whole, including the control of inflation, and the proper duty of local government to decide how much it wants to spend to meet local needs. That is the knotty problem on which I tried to help my hon. Friends and hon. Members who represent Warwickshire.
Before I move on from aggregate spending figures, let me say a word about the total provision for education and personal social services, on which hon. Members have raised points. Provision for spending on education is set to rise by 1.1 per cent. That comes on top of a 2.4 per cent. increase for 1994–95. In real terms, as I have said, spending per pupil has risen by almost 50 per cent. since 1979. It is remarkable that that has happened. It would be wrong to ignore it. It is against that background that we have fixed the figures for this year.
It will be up to local education authorities and schools to deploy their resources to maximum effect to give priority to front-line services. If I had had the opportunity earlier, I would have made the point about the tone of the Cornwall telephone directory. The proportion of people who are admitted to be in administration—clerks and the like—as compared with people out in the field is on a scale which no private industry could support.

Sir David Madel: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the difficulties in Bedfordshire. Will he confirm that it is utterly untrue to say that central Government has ordered Bedfordshire to make a 4 per cent. cut in school budgets throughout the county? That is absolutely mischievous and misleading and will he condemn it?

Mr. Gummer: Not only is it absolutely untrue, but I am afraid that it is typical of the thought process of authorities not uninfluenced by the Liberal Democrats. I can sum up the thought process in the words of a Liberal opponent of mine—he was perfectly reasonable in every other way—who, when I asked why he had put out a leaflet which he knew was utterly untrue, said, "Well, all's fair in politics, isn't it?" That is the sadness of local authorities which put out documents which they know to be untrue. I must say that the Labour party has a much better reputation for that than the Liberal Democrats, whose idea of truth is very different from what we find in the rest of the political scene.

Mr. Don Foster: In response to the comments that the Secretary of State has just made, may I say that I, too, deprecate anybody who puts out a document containing information that he knows to be incorrect. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, notwithstanding all the comments that he has made about the increases in education spending since 1979, the standard spending assessments per pupil are to be reduced this coming year compared with last year? Yes or no?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the total amount of money available for a local authority increases. If a local education authority decided that it should spend less on education or more on administration, it would spend less per pupil. But there is no reason why the hon. Gentleman's local authority or any other authority could not spend more on pupils and less on administration. It is difficult to understand how the hon. Gentleman can condemn the practice in general when the Liberal Democrats do it on every occasion. I remember what they did in Tower Hamlets; and they should still be hanging their heads in shame.

Mr. Mark Robinson: My right hon. Friend may like to know that the Liberal Democratic


party has been circulating petitions in my constituency which talk about massive cuts by central Government on Somerset spending.

Mr. Gummer: I have read out the figures. There can be no such statement. The facts are that Somerset's SSA has gone up by much more than the county average for England. It cannot be presented as a cut, because it is an increase. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath will wish immediately to renew communications with the public. In it, I hope that he will not only put right the fact that Somerset's SSA is not being cut, but ensure that no resident of Somerset misses the fact that the number of Somerset staff has increased by 3.4 per cent. in a year.
No private company could have managed such an increase while staying in business. The hon. Member for Bath should be ashamed of what Somerset Liberal Democrats have done and of the non-existence of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who has made such a fuss. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is afraid.

Mr. Don Foster: rose—

Mr. Gummer: If the leader of the Liberal Democrats cares to come to the House, I shall give way to him so that he can explain why he has written to members of my party to ask them to vote for him when he has not even bothered to turn up for the debate. I am ashamed of the right hon. Gentleman.
We have heard much about the funding of the community care reforms over the past few months. I believe that the figures speak for themselves.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: Yes, they do.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) accepts that. Next year, local authorities will have £1.8 billion in recognition of their new responsibilities. That is an increase of 44 per cent. over the figure for the current year. As I have said, in 1995–96 there will be a ring-fenced grant totalling £648 million for authorities to spend on community care—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may feel that that information is to he yawned at, but most of the people involved in community care know that we have carried through our determination to enhance the powers and responsibilities of local authorities by giving them the new duties and the means to carry them through.

Mr. David Clelland: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

Mr. Gummer: No.
As I have said, total standard spending for England will increase by 2 per cent. next year.

Mr. Clelland: rose—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I will give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. It seems that the Government are running rather scared from the west country woolly hats at the moment. I felt quite sorry for the Secretary of State earlier when he looked like a Christian being thrown to the lions. However, if he

is going to start cherry-picking among local authorities, my sympathy will run out. What has he got to say about Westminster? He has praised that council so far, but according to the Evening Standard tonight, the council did not collect £30 million in service charges in respect of flats and properties that it had sold. What has the Secretary of State got to say about that in terms of the misappropriation of resources?

Mr. Gummer: What I say about the figures that I have given is that I take them from the published figures and the facts as set out by the auditors. As far as I understand it, the figure referred to by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West emanates largely from the Labour party in Westminster. I would want to look more carefully at the figures before I confirmed or denied what the hon. Gentleman has said.
However, I can tell the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that, no matter what party it comes from, if there is evidence of impropriety or improper behaviour I would condemn it. I only wish that that was a more general view on both sides of the House.
We are increasing aggregate external finance at a lower rate than total standard spending because we believe that it is right that local taxpayers should fund a slightly higher proportion of the cost of local services. However, the level of council tax is a decision for each authority and will depend—

Mr. Clelland: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has asked me to give way "on that point" on several occasions. I want to make more progress and more than three lines of my speech would be reasonable.
The level of council tax is a decision for each authority and it will depend on the level of service that councils choose to provide, the improvements that they can make to efficiency and effectiveness and how well they can collect what they are owed. I am therefore not about to start predicting council tax levels.
I will not make such predictions because I have tried to learn from the Labour party. Last year—[Interruption.] The Opposition Front Bench spokesman should not make comments from a sedentary position because I am going to tell him what I have learnt. Last year, Labour predicted that—[Interruption.] The point may be short, but it is worth listening to. Last year, the Labour party predicted that council taxes would rise by 6 per cent. They actually increased by only 2.2 per cent. The Labour party was wrong.
Indeed, Labour was wrong just as, in three successive years, the former shadow Environment spokesman was wrong when he said that the number of teachers had fallen. He was only slightly wrong. He should have said that the number had risen. That is the difference. The trouble is that the Labour party constantly cries, "Fear!" and "Danger!"

Mr. Clelland: Will the Secretary of State give way on this point?

Mr. Gummer: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman on this point.

Mr. Clelland: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Is he aware that, under his criteria, the city of Newcastle


upon Tyne will be forced to cut £5 million from its budget while, at the same time, reducing band D council tax by £70? Is he further aware that the local newspaper has conducted a survey of residents in the area which showed that, by a margin of 20:1, the people of Newcastle would prefer to keep the council tax at its present level and avoid any cuts? Why cannot the Secretary of State accommodate the electorate of Newcastle?

Mr. Gummer: The people of Newcastle have an authority which has consistently spent very highly. If it intends to take more from the population than is reasonable, that will have an effect on the total spending on local government in the nation. That has a real impact on the economy. There is no way in which Newcastle can avoid being part of the United Kingdom economy. We try to achieve a reasonable balance.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My right hon. Friend referred to teaching numbers. Will he confirm that Devon county council increased its staff levels last year by 2.4 per cent., or 718 people? If it can increase its staff by that amount, and in view of the settlement that it is now receiving, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no reason why a single teacher should be dismissed in Devon?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is being too kind to his local authority. He should tell his authority to answer a simple question. Does it think that education is important and, if it thinks that it is, will it put its additional resources into education and reduce spending on the unnecessary extra staff which it has decided, under the new administration, to add to its payroll? Unless the authority can say yes to that, the people of Devon will receive the bad deal which they are being offered at the moment under the guise of blaming the Government. It is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) should press that point strongly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I should come to a conclusion quickly. However, before I do so, I should warn the House that there will be attempts to suggest that the system is unfortunately not as it should be. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, will, now that he is so widely recognised as an expert on local government finance, put forward the view that the SSA system benefits Conservative-controlled councils rather than Labour-controlled councils.
Before the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras rises, I want to give the House the opportunity to take the following fact on board. Of the 50 councils with the highest SSA per head, only three are Conservative controlled—[Interruption.] At any opportunity, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras suggests that we somehow fiddle the figures to help ourselves, but that is manifestly not true. The House is aware of the facts.
If hon. Members listen carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, they will no doubt hear him refer to phoney mathematics. The phoney mathematics involves comparing the outturn figures at the end of the year with the SSA additions for the beginning of the year. In all my time in the Department of the

Environment and before that, I have not heard an Opposition Member make a speech on the subject in which the phrase "phoney mathematics" did not appear.

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: In a moment.
I must warn the House that there will be another "phoney" reference and that is the reference to phoney facts. The Opposition spokesman will suggest that one does not get the same deal in St. Helens as one gets in Westminster. In fact, one gets a better deal. First, there are better services which are provided better and, secondly if the councils spent at the same level, a higher proportion would be covered by the grant.
There is one fact that we will not hear in the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras because, unfortunately, he has been unable to find it. Every local authority in the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities was asked to provide examples of the way in which councils had to sack people—

Mr. Frank Dobson: Not by me.

Mr. Gummer: Ah, so those Labour-dominated authorities provided the information entirely of their own volition with no intention of passing the results to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. I understand why they did not pass the results on. Having written to all the authorities asking for examples of the number of compulsory redundancies which they had to make as a result of the appalling policies of the Government, there was no reply. No examples could be found. The authorities could not manage to come up with the information. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will not he able to give that fact, although he longed to do so. I hope that we shall look carefully at that matter.

Mr. John Heppell: Nottingham city council has tried to respond to what the Government have said in the past. In the past three years, it has saved £15 million. However, under the assessment, it would need an extra £3.3 million just to keep level with inflation. Savings were made in the past, and the Government tried to heap savings on top of them.

Mr. Gummer: Savings cannot be made in one period and then ignored for the rest. Nottingham is spending 8.8 per cent. above its standard spending assessment. As in any business, the programme of being more and more efficient has to take place. I know that matters are difficult in Nottingham city council, because it has a bad example in Nottinghamshire county council. Nottingham councillors recognise that, because it is part of the embarrassing relationship between those two bodies. If both tried to save, the citizens of Nottinghamshire would benefit immensely.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I must now refer to the distribution of grant. We have a system whose sole aim is to ensure that


available resources are divided fairly, according to needs, so that each authority is placed on an equal footing. We try to work those out—

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the start of the debate you had to announce that a 10-minute limit will be imposed on hon. Members, with the exception of the Front-Bench spokesmen. The Secretary of State has spoken for an hour, and he has deliberately provoked interventions in order to prevent hon. Members from speaking. Do you deprecate that behaviour, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Can you offer us any protection from this deliberate filibuster?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair observes that Members are honourable Members. Presumably, they are capable of controlling their bodies as to whether or not they rise to intervene. Many hon. Members have been rising to intervene. If hon. Members would resume their seats, the Secretary of State might come to a conclusion.

Mr. Gummer: It is a little harsh to say that I have been speaking for an hour. Several hon. Members have had an opportunity to put their points of view.
There are those who want more money for their local authority. The only way in which that can be done is either by taking money from other local authorities or by increasing the total amount. That is why we shall look with considerable care at the comments of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. He must tell us, if he does not like the settlement, how much more he would spend, where it would come from, what taxes he would raise in order to deliver it, and whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has given his permission for that statement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give way to my right hon. and hon. Friends if they wish to remind him of that fact and, perhaps, ask again for his point of view.
To all councillors and hon. Members who ask, "Why does the system not give my authority more resources?", I say that, if we had a system which is as objective as we can work out with the local authority associations, it would not allow me to change the sum of the resources for an aggrieved authority or tilt that system toward a particular local council. I have seen that problem particularly when dealing with Newham, where there is an issue about the way in which spending is categorised between different groups of local authorities. I cannot make the point strongly enough that we can change the distribution methodology only when a different objective formula is justified. If the hon. Gentleman has some points that he would like to put into the formula, as his predecessors had, for they had several suggestions, I shall be very willing to consider them.
Last year, we carried out a thorough review of the distribution methodology and incorporated many changes. We needed a period of stability thereafter. We have made some changes, particularly to accommodate the police arrangements. There is more up-to-date information on pupil numbers, which makes the methodology much more up to date, as many people would agree.
We have also had to make a change in the SSA for the fire service, to take account of calls to incidents such as road accidents, and to recognise that maritime authorities

have less scope for drawing reinforcements from neighbouring fire brigades. We have considered once more area cost adjustments, and we have responded to local government representations on the deemed debt of the former Greater London council and the levy of the London Pensions Fund Authority, which has helped inner London councils considerably. Detailed discussions with local authorities have led to that.
Since then, during the consultation period, we have received a number of representations from authorities about the data that we propose to use in the calculation of SSAs. Some of those representations brought to light errors that we have been able to correct. In particular, we have been able to improve data on pupil numbers, and we have tried to find ways of dealing with imperfections relating to pensions in the police SSA. We shall continue to discuss the SSA methodology with local authority associations.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I undertake that, if right hon. and hon. Members are able to produce examples of a different way of doing all that, particularly suggestions in regard to weighting, I shall be happy to consider them. I want to try to have a system that is increasingly able to meet changing circumstances such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who spoke of certain difficulties in Liverpool. Hon. Friends from Devon raised other matters.
I said in December that I would continue to pay a special grant to compensate authorities that have lost more than 4 per cent. of SSA as a result of the incorporation of the new census data and the changes stemming—

Mr. Raynsford: That is a backhander.

Mr. Gummer: The House should hear the comments of the hon. Member for Greenwich. He said, "That is a backhander." It is what local authority associations have universally ask me to do. It is a pretty wide backhander if we give it to every local authority. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for saying that.
This is a fair arrangement, phasing out transitional support so that grant can be redistributed elsewhere. I propose also to pay a special grant to police authorities whose combined SSA and entitlement to police grant next year will be reduced by more than 2 per cent. as a result of the move to the new police funding formula. Perhaps the hon. Member for Greenwich would say that that universally asked-for change is a backhander. Special grant report No. 12 will establish those grants for 1995–96. Some £261 million of special grant will be distributed to local authorities in that way.
The capping of local authority budgets—I come to the last point that I want to make—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Opposition Members have asked me to give way. I have no means of orchestrating the Labour party, nor does anyone else. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) rose, but he was unable to intervene. He cannot complain because other hon. Members had an opportunity to put their points of view.
I have considered carefully the representations that Ministers in my Department and in other Departments have received from a range of authorities. In the light of those representations, I have decided to make one change to the intended capping criteria announced in December.
Last year I announced in a similar debate an adjustment that benefited authorities that had been the subject of a substantial reduction in SSA as a result of the SSA review implemented in last year's settlement and which, under the initial criteria, would have been required to reduce their budgets in cash terms. I propose to make a similar change this year. It will apply to any authority whose SSA was reduced as a consequence of the 1993 review by more than 10 per cent. as measured for the purpose of SSA reduction grant. The effect, as last year, is that any such authority will be required to freeze its budget rather than to reduce it in cash terms.
I also announced in December my proposals for the calculation of notional amounts for authorities whose boundaries or functions will change from 1 April. They provide the base from which I shall measure increases in budgets in determining whether those increases are excessive. In addition, I announced provisional criteria which made allowance for that expenditure on care in the community which is being met this year by the special transitional grant.
Apart from the changes which I have described, my intentions as regards capping criteria remain as I described them in December. The House will recognise that capping is an essential tool for retaining the effective control of overall spending required by the Government—indeed, any Government's—economic strategy. I understand that there are even suggestions that capping would form part of a Labour Government strategy. We will not hesitate to use our capping powers should it prove necessary.
This .year's settlement will give local authorities some difficult decisions to make, but, in the interests of the national economy, local government—like central Government—must restrain spending and make each pound it spends go further. The settlement also demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to a fair distribution of available resources, on a basis which uses up-to-date information and objective formulae. I commend the settlement and these reports to the House.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Now that the 70 minutes of sermonising are over, we should return to the real world. I remind the House that, in this coming year, real council tax payers in England will end up paying more and getting less. There may be a few councils where the council tax will not go up, and there may be one or two where services will not be cut, but, taken overall, nearly every council tax payer in this coming year will pay more and get less because the Government are cutting the grant.
It is not just the Labour party which is saying that. The Minister of State—using elegant phraseology to which I could not possibly aspire—is reported as saying:
We have all been stuffed by the Treasury".
Councillor Rita Taylor, the Tory chair of the Association of District Councils' finance panel, said:
the public are going to have to pay more … Conservatives in local government are in despair at this settlement".
The general situation has not changed much since the Minister made his statement at the beginning of December. From the Government's figures, we can expect the average council tax increase over the whole country

to be about 6 per cent. It will be lower in some areas and higher in others, but even including that average increase, and using again the Government's figures, the money available for councils will be £1.5 billion short of what is being spent on services this year. That does not allow for any forthcoming pay increases, the additional cost of about 100,000 extra children starting school, the needs of more old people, better services for the disabled and other demands.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: I would rather get on, if I may. [Interruption.] Legions of hon. Members want to speak on behalf of their communities. We had a speech of 70 minutes from the Secretary of State, and I shall give way to a limited number of hon. Members. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the Minister.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman says that the settlement is inadequate. Therefore, the Labour party would either give more grant or would allow capping to be relaxed and council taxes to go up. Which is it to be? By how much would revenue support grant go up? By how much would the hon. Gentleman be willing to see council taxes rise? There is no alternative to one of those two options, or perhaps both.

Mr. Dobson: We are not hear to discuss what a future Labour Government might do. We are here to deal with a proposition that the Government are putting forward today. It is fairly unlikely that the Labour party will be in charge of the country within the forthcoming financial year, although I hope that we are. We look forward to dealing with the problems and making the best of the opportunities. We are discussing the Government's proposals tonight, and it is up to them to defend them.
The Government's figures suggest that, during the next three years, council tax payers will have to find an extra £2.8 billion in council tax. That is equivalent to 1.5p on the standard rate of income tax. They will have to find that not just next year, but the year after and the year after that. People can expect to pay more and get less.
Ministers try to give the impression—God knows the Secretary of State has taken enough time in doing So tonight—that the formula is objective and is as "fair as humanly possible", as the Secretary of State said. However, the standard spending assessment is based on the Government's assessments of need, and one does not need to be a member of the Royal Statistical Society to see that that cannot be right.
Never mind how the Government arrive at their criteria for deprivation—what one should do is judge them by the outcome. According to the Government's social index of need, Westminster is more deprived than Brent, Lambeth or Southwark; Runnymede is more deprived than Oldham or Liverpool; Hove is more deprived than Hartlepool; Salisbury is more deprived than Knowsley; Windsor—I know that it is going through a bad time at the moment—is more deprived than Bury, Langbaurgh, Ipswich, Thurrock or Darlington. I do not think that anybody believes that that is right.
The system is a party political racket, and everybody knows it. It has been designed to help Tory areas and to help keep Tories in power. A supreme example is the


special fiddled funding for Westminster. Westminster used to be the Tory flagship, but scandals are turning it into the Tory ship of shame. If the Conservatives think that Westminster is their flagship, they should remember that their last flagship was the poll tax, and Westminster will sink them like the poll tax did.
Time and time again, the Government have rigged the grant to help Westminster, first to keep down the poll tax and then to keep down the council tax. The Secretary of State may say that there was no rigging. Let me read from a note prepared for Lady Porter, the leader of Westminster city council, on 9 May 1989. The note compliments the Secretary of State—he was not the Secretary of State at the time—and says that he is the "most alert" of Ministers to political nuances, and that he would be particularly conscious—

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to raise this point of order, but I thought that we were speaking today about the revenue support settlement for the coming year, not for some years ago. If all that the Opposition can rely on is something which happened years ago, it shows that they are fairly bankrupt of ideas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must draw the attention of all hon. Members to the fact that the motion is concerned with the revenue support grant and the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1995–96. Anything may be used in evidence, but that obviously is the primary purpose of the debate.

Mr. Dobson: You will be familiar, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the fact that one of the reasons why Westminster is in such a good seam at the moment is that skulduggery and fiddling in the past have allowed the council to build up enormous balances. In many cases, those balances exceed the amounts of expenditure which some councils can look forward to in the coming year.
I now return to the report, written when Westminster started building up those balances. It was reported to Lady Porter that the Secretary of State—then the Minister of State—would be particularly conscious that, with safety nets, a number of high-spending Labour London boroughs would appear to get off the hook with community charges "lower than Westminster". The Tories then set about making sure that those community charges "lower than Westminster" did not come about.
Westminster will have to be given very large sums of money this year to make up for the millions of pounds that have been lost within the council through corruption and incompetence. That is not just a matter for Westminster, because the extra funds which are constantly found for that council and which, it is proposed, should be given to Westminster in this settlement, are taken from the funds available to councils elsewhere. That is in not just the rest of London, but the rest of the country. Every other council gets less so that Westminster can get more.
At a previous Question Time, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) drew attention to the rather unfair treatment of St. Helens compared with Westminster, despite the fact that they have about the same population. My hon. Friend will give further details if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. St. Helens receives £104 million in grant from the

Government while Westminster receives £194 million. The grant per head for St. Helens is £578 and the grant per head for Westminster is £1,024.
It could be argued that, as St. Helens is not in central London, those figures are not strictly comparable. As the Secretary of State seems to be obsessed with the London borough of Camden, let us compare Camden with Westminster. Both boroughs are roughly the same size, geographically and in terms of population, and are adjacent to one another. Virtually the only difference is that more rich people live in Westminster than in Camden. One would think, therefore, that Camden would get more money than Westminster, but that is not so. Westminster receives £194 million whereas Camden receives £178 million. Westminster will have got nearly £16 million more in this settlement. It got £21 million more in the year that is coming to an end and £20 million more the year before that. However, that clearly does not have a direct effect on performance because, as the Secretary of State's officials can confirm, the Audit Commission's indicators show that Camden is better run than Westminster.
How has the grant been rigged to benefit Westminster at the expense of everywhere else in England? Some time ago, Westminster received £7.2 million to spend on flood defences. It spent £700,000 and therefore had a kick-back of £6.3 million. It was also given £2.2 million to give a grant to the English National Opera and the English National Ballet. It gave £200,000 and kept £2 million for itself. That is £8 million to start off with, which others should have received in a fair system. However, the swindling is much more systematic than that. The special weighting for tourists was doubled at one stage to £5.3 million. The standard spending assessment for Westminster includes a £54 million allowance for the extra cost of visitors.
Another special factor is at work in Westminster, which, for some reason, is not allowed for in the SSA. In the current year, Westminster receives more than £20 million in income from parking charges, and that sum is expected to be more than £30 million in the forthcoming year. One would expect a Government who are so concerned with public spending to abate or to reduce Westminster's grant to reflect that massive income, which is not available to other councils. Instead, Westminster is allowed to keep every bit of it. It is a racket: extra money for visitors is not offset by the money that visitors bring in. Moreover, it has all been done as part of a political swindle.
Why was that necessary? First, it was to keep the poll tax down; secondly, it was to keep the council tax down—

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No.
Thirdly, it is to make up for money lost by that Tory council deliberately by fraud, incompetence and corruption. Everyone in the country now knows that Westminster council is being done by the district auditor for the "homes for votes" scandal in which £21 million has been lost, but there has been a more recent revelation.
The Secretary of State said that he did not deal with figures unless they came from the auditor. These figures are from the auditor—Westminster's internal auditor—who says that the council lost £30 million by not


collecting service charges, management charges and the cost of repairs to flats and houses that it sold. That cannot simply be forgotten, as it did not happen by accident. It was deliberate, and the papers show that the council ignored legal advice and kept the facts from committees and the public. That is why the Labour party is calling for a special audit of Westminster city council. I now challenge the Secretary of State to order a special audit of—

Mr. Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that we were debating the Local Government Finance Report (England)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on that matter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening when I did so.

Mr. Dobson: In case the hon. Gentleman does not understand, the money that Westminster city council has not collected is having to be made up by Government grants. Therefore, grants are not available to people in his area or in areas represented by my hon. Friends.
Will the Secretary of State establish a special audit to root out corruption in Westminster, or do the Tories reserve special audits for Labour councils?

Mr. Gummer: The auditor is, at this very moment, dealing with a number of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong to say that any of those makes any difference whatever to the distribution of grant, either this year or in previous years. So he should not mislead the House. Moreover, the House will have noticed that he has now been speaking for 15 minutes but has dealt with nothing except the past arrangements of Westminster city council and has given no answers about scandals in Camden, the lists of which were public, not spread about by leaked documentation. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Dobson: How can the Secretary of State say that the scandalous waste of public funds in Westminster has not affected the funds that it receives from central Government? He says that he did not know about it. If he and his officials did not know about it, they would not know why there were such gaps in the accounts, which had to be made up in this settlement. That is why we are concerned about what is going on.
If the Secretary of State wants to bandy about figures for Westminster and Camden, let me give him a few. The Audit Commission selected 12 indicators at the middle of last year. On those, Camden far out-performs Westminster. There are 12 indicators and 12 inner London boroughs. Camden comes top in four of those indicators and is either first or second best in seven out of 12. Westminster comes top in only one and either first or second best in just three of the 12. Camden has the best educational results in inner London, even before they are adjusted for deprivation. When deprivation is taken into account, Camden is second best in the whole of England, and Westminster is 99th. I hope that the Secretary of State is proud of that. When it comes to handing out mandatory awards to students, 99 per cent. of students in Camden got mandatory awards on the due date, whereas no students in Westminster got mandatory awards on the due date. So I hope that the Secretary of State will shut up for the time being.
Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the present arrangements, powers and resources of the Audit Commission and the district auditor, or does he agree with the Labour party that the present system is letting everyone down and that the Audit Commission and the district auditor need to be strengthened to eliminate fraud and corruption wherever it arises?

Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman has obviously not listened to anything anyone has said, I shall repeat Rt. I am opposed to impropriety of any kind, wherever it comes from, and will seek to ensure that it is rooted out. I note that it has occurred in a number of boroughs and, in those circumstances, no one has been more ready to support those who have been found innocent and oppose those who have been found guilty. The hon. Gentleman seems not to remember that it is a principle of English law that a man or organisation is not found guilty until he or it is proved guilty. He thinks that he can fling about any statement in the House because he is protected by the privileges of the House. I wish that he earned those privileges.

Mr. Dobson: I have never said anything in the House that I am not willing to repeat outside it. In commenting on Westminster city council in the House today, I have only repeated what I have said on television and on radio.
I may seem to have spent a lot of time discussing the Westminster city council, but the Government's treatment of it shows how unfair and party political is the system. Only four places in Britain—Hackney, Tower Hamlets, the Scilly Isles and the City of London—receive a higher proportion of Government support than Westminster. The rest of us get less so that Westminster can get more.
I shall give some examples of the reduction in council tax that would occur in other areas if those areas received the same level of external Government help as Westminster. The Camden council tax would be reduced by £261, the Croydon council tax would be reduced by £73, the Enfield tax would be reduced by £274 and the Bristol tax would be reduced by £258. That is nothing compared with many other councils. If they received the same level of external Government support as Westminster, council tax payers in Bury and Oldharn would not pay anything at all—they would get a refund every year. The same thing would apply in Redbridge, Plymouth, Dartmouth, Langbaurgh, Gloucester, Dover, Stockton-on-Tees, Southampton, Northampton, Carlisle, Watford and York. I do not understand how anyone could think that that is not a racket.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman does not understand how people would not think that it is a racket, but why does not the Association of County Councils think that it is a racket? It thinks that there is a reasonable level, as does the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and all of the other people and organisations which are involved in the process. The decisions are arrived at after full discussion with local authorities. The only other person who does not agree with it is the hon. Gentleman's predecessor on the Opposition Front Bench.
Furthermore, independent authorities such as Mr. Tony Travers have said that what the hon. Gentleman says is simply not true. The only people who think as the hon.
Gentleman does are those who have done so little homework that they do not understand how the system works to the benefit of the whole country.

Mr. Dobson: I have done enough homework to recognise what the Minister means. When he says that decisions are taken in consultation with local authorities, he really means that he decides after he has consulted with them—and he usually ignores what they have said.
The results reveal the true integrity and fairness of the system. Under the settlement, people will pay more this year and receive less: council tax will rise and services will be cut. I do not have time to list all of those services because I want to keep my contribution short.

Mr. Dennis Turner: My hon. Friend did not mention wonderful Wolverhampton in his list of authorities which would benefit in the way that he outlined. Wolverhampton is an exemplary authority—the Secretary of State would confirm that if he got to his feet—but in the coming year, in order to stand still, we shall have to find an extra £7 million by either increasing charges or reducing our services because the Secretary of State has not honoured his commitment to the wonderful people of Wolverhampton. They will bear the pain in the next financial year as a result of the Government's failure to recognise the needs of local government.

Mr. Dobson: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not mentioning Wolverhampton in my list of places which would receive a refund if their councils were as well supplied with Government funds as Westminster. However, we do not have time to list them all. He reiterates what Labour Members have said: in most cases, people will pay more and receive less.
I shall give some examples of what is happening to council services. As more children are living in poverty today than at any time in the past 30 years, school meals should be becoming more important. In 1979, when the Government came to power, 63 per cent. of children took school meals; now the figure is only 43 per cent. The reason is that the price of school meals has increased from 20p all over the country to 120p in some areas, while at the same time nutritional standards have been abandoned.
Will the Secretary of State confirm whether there will be further rises in the price of school meals in the coming year? Will nutritional standards fall further? We asked him those questions when he delivered his statement in December but he did not answer. If he cannot be bothered to answer now, it is clear that he does not care.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No.
Apparently, some Tories claim that the size of school classes does not matter—which is strange as nearly all of them send their children out of the regular school system to be educated. They send their children to the fee-paying schools which have smaller class sizes. [Interruption.] I do not know why Government Members are getting excited because I do not know anyone on the Opposition Benches who sends his or her children to a fee-paying school.
Let us assume, therefore, that the children of Tories benefit from smaller class sizes. Most people think that it would be a good idea if all of our children could enjoy the educational benefits of smaller class sizes. According to the Government's own figures, in the past 10 years there has been a 9 per cent. increase in class sizes in primary schools and secondary school class sizes are rising as well. There are reports of that occurring all over the country. I ask the Secretary of State: will there be further increases in school class sizes? Does he know? Does he care? I can assure him that parents care, but they are faced with paying more and getting less.
Youth clubs are another part of the education service which is increasingly neglected. Those clubs do not constitute a statutory provision and they are closing all over the country. Government Members then ask why there is an increase in juvenile crime. In London, and in many other parts of the country, the youth clubs which used to keep children occupied have been closed. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman, with his religious leanings, would recall the old saying, "The devil makes work for idle hands." The closure of youth clubs has certainly led to other problems.

Mr. Yeo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall certainly not give way. As to clubs at the other end of the age spectrum—

Mr. Yeo: Give way.

Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is just standing there, because I can remember his abominable behaviour on previous occasions.

Mr. Yeo: Give way.

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Opposition spokesman clearly does not intend to give way to the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo).

Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider what he has just said? He made a direct assertion about my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South, but he will not give way to him. Will the hon. Gentleman have the courtesy to give way to someone whom he has insulted?

Mr. Dobson: I can cast my mind back to the occasion when the hon. Member for Suffolk, South made assertions about the veracity of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). That led to Madam Speaker having to make a statement about the whole matter—so I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Yeo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make unsupported assertions, in respect of an hon. Member sitting in the Chamber, about what happened in a previous Parliament, and then to refuse to give way to him?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair deprecates personal comments even if they are not ruled out by "Erskine


May". I think that this whole debate has become a little too excited; but how hon. Members conduct themselves in entirely up to them.

Mr. Dobson: In 1979, luncheon clubs provided meals for 15 million old people. In the last year for which figures are available, they provided meals for only 7 million people. Those clubs provide old people not just with a meal but with a chance to get out and enjoy a bit of company—to stir out of their homes, in which some of them feel imprisoned because they are fearful of going out. Will more or fewer pensioners be having meals in luncheon clubs as a result of today's announcement?
As for care in the community, there are all sorts of calculations about NHS funding, local council funding, voluntary sector funding and private sector funding. I admit that the system is byzantine in its complexity, but the evidence of people's eyes and of our advice services and post bags show that the figures speak for themselves—sad figures, stumbling around the streets with no one to look after them. People have come to us because their neighbours cannot help being a nuisance when they are in a crisis, but there is no one to look after them; there are no acute or secure beds to cope with them. From the inner cities to the shire counties, care in the community is not working properly—and we all know it.
I shall continue with a few more examples of what seems likely to happen. No doubt the Government will refer to them as anecdotes. These days, the definition of an anecdote is a reality that gives the lie to Government statistics. The Government claim that the threats to services are exaggerated by councils. There may be some truth in that; there may be exaggeration by teachers and by pensioner groups. For every spoonful of hyperbole on the part of local people, we get a bucketful of litotes from Ministers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of what?"] For Conservative Members who have not had the benefit of a classical education, I shall try again. For every ounce of exaggeration by local people, we get a ton of complacent understatement from Ministers.
In Warwickshire, there is a threat to schools. Yesterday, I encountered someone in a meeting to do with the green side of my environmental duties. Towards the end of our discussions, he suddenly said, "I hope you are going to oppose what is happening to schools in Warwickshire, because we are faced with a possible loss of one teacher from every primary school and every secondary school. That will harm the education of my children and of the children of my neighbours." Does the Secretary of State deny that that is likely to happen?

Mr. Roger Knapman: rose—

Mr. Dobson: No, I want to get on with my speech so as to allow some of my hon. Friends to speak up for their communities.
Shropshire faces a £1 million reduction in spending on the elderly. It faces a reduction of nearly £500,000 in spending on people with learning difficulties, and a loss of more than £500,000 for spending on services to children in families—including the council's efforts to prevent child abuse. Last night I, like all hon. Members who attended the debate, heard about the nationwide concern over the funding of the police service and the attendant threat to the fight against crime.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to Shropshire. Can he confirm

that the immense problems that we face there stem not just from this year's settlement but from a succession of four bad settlements which have meant that services have been consistently threatened for four years? There is near-universal agreement in the county that the only way services can be maintained is by going through the capping limit.

Mr. Dobson: I understand that. We are not making a party political point because, as we understand it, all the members of Shropshire county council—Tory, Liberal and Labour alike—believe that the capping limit is too low to allow them to provide the services that they believe their people deserve.
If we can believe what we read, the Tory members of the county council have been making representations to the Secretary of State, presumably to the same effect—although I hope that they have been more successful than some others who have made representations. I have checked on what happened to the seven Tory-controlled councils—there are so few of them these days—which have made representations to the Secretary of State or to one of his Ministers. They include Solihull, about which the Secretary of State was looking so concerned. Solihull went to ask for more; it ended up with £51,000 less. Castle Point went and came out with less. Likewise Dartford, Ribble Valley, Rushmoor, Thanet, and above all Brent, which went and lost £500,000 as a result of its representations. And that is what happens to Tory councils.
Even more seriously, last year the fire service in South Yorkshire was so short of funds that it had to capitalise fire fighters' pension lump sums. In ordinary language, it took out a mortgage to find the money to pay the lump sums to fire fighters retiring from the service. The Government accepted that South Yorkshire was skint enough to have to do that. This year one might have expected the council to get a bit more from the Government to ease matters a little, but it got less: a cut of £1.4 million from a total budget of only £32 million. For the past two years, that fire brigade has not been able to afford new uniforms or new tyres for the fire engines. It needs to replace the fire engine tyres: worn tyres are not exactly a good idea.
The chief fire officer says that the authority cannot cope. I have to tell the Secretary of State—I had hoped that the Government machine would warn him of this—that the Home Office inspector has said that South Yorkshire cannot meet its minimum standards of fire cover on its current budget. So the people of South Yorkshire will have to pay more for less fire cover. I understand that the same applies on Merseyside, which has a £4.7 million shortfall. The authority fears that it will be in breach of its statutory duty.
While we are in South Yorkshire, let me mention Barnsley, which is apparently far less deprived than Runnymede and similar places. Over the past few years, Barnsley has lost 20 pits. In their desperate efforts to get the pit closure programme through the House, the Government promised to set up enterprise zones in the areas most deprived as a result of pit closures, yet they are so slovenly and useless that not one of those enterprise zones is yet in operation. The one in Barnsley certainly is not, and Barnsley has been capped on its standard spending assessment. It faces the prospect of having to close day centres for the mentally handicapped, for


instance. Even if it can avoid that, it may have to withdraw one of those little, kindly forms of gentleness that make life better for people who are in a bad way. Until now, when people have gone to the centres for the mentally handicapped in Barnsley they have been given a little pay—£4 or £5 a week—to give them a bit of self-respect and spending money. Under this settlement, it seems likely that, even if the centre can be kept open, that little bit of self-respect will have to be withdrawn.

Mr. Yeo: rose—

Mr. Dobson: No.
I think that the Barnsley experience epitomises what is happening in Britain under this Government. Taxes increase and vulnerable people suffer. Vital services such as the fire brigade suffer; our children's schooling suffers. Old people suffer while the rich get richer. The operators of privatised buses line their pockets at everybody else's expense. Tory Ministers receive their pay-offs by joining the boards of industries that they privatised, or boards of city firms that have made a fortune out of privatisation. All this is happening while corruption in Westminster continues to be subsidised by the taxpayer and the council tax payer in the rest of England. We are all sick of it. We do not want to pay more to get less.

Mr. Eric Pickles: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a disappointing speech. Smear, hyperbole and shroud waving are no substitutes for policy. It is little short of a travesty to suggest that changes in standard spending assessment have been fiddled. I well know that the changes have been brought about by local authority associations. I have in mind especially those recommendations that related to unemployment and social deprivation, which were fought hard, but accepted. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was so uncertain of his argument—the House will draw its own conclusions—that he did not dare allow a Conservative Back-Bench Member to intervene in his speech.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right when he said that we are dealing with a tough settlement. It is one of the toughest local government settlements that I have seen, but no settlement can be judged on the basis of one year. Last year's settlement was extremely good for local authorities. It was much better than it appeared to be at the time. There was no justification for the extravagant claims which were made, such as serious reductions in service. The net fall in the number of people employed by local authorities was slightly more than 1 per cent. Taking into consideration schools that opted for grant-maintained status and the effects of compulsory competitive tendering, we see that last year's settlement was about neutral.
The fact that this year's settlement would be tough has been well flagged in the specialist press. It is well known that directors of finance and leaders of councils, being prudent men, have taken note of reports that the settlement would be a difficult one. They have had much more than three quarters of a year to prepare for it.
We know from a recent Audit Commission report, entitled "Paying the Piper", that there is about £500 million within the system that could be diverted to front-line services.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pickles: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not have unlimited time. I have only 10 minutes. If possible, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman towards the end of my speech.
We have seen the usual parade of amputated stumps. Young people and the elderly have been used as battering rams. When my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) talked about parents and elderly people being in terror, Opposition Members broke into laughter. I do not believe that that happened because they are callous. They laughed because they know the truth; they know, for example, that no teachers will be made redundant.
Cuts in teacher numbers will not be made. I know that, as do Opposition Members and the media. The only people who do not know that there will be no such cuts are frightened people. Opposition Members may not have had to deal with people coming into advice bureaux shaking with fear because the local authority is threatening to take away home care from their elderly parents. There are also parents who are worried about their young child returning from school with a letter from the local authority suggesting that teachers will be made redundant. I believe firmly in the professionalism and independence of local authority officers. If, however, the majority party of a council decides that a letter should be sent to the people of the area, I do not accept that it should be sent in the name of a local authority officer.
I believe that head teachers are entitled to protest. They are entitled to say what they think about the level of service within their responsibility. If, however, schools are short of resources, they are not entitled to use school notepaper to draw attention to what they regard as shortages, thereby depriving schools of equally valuable resources.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: What does my hon. Friend say about a leaflet that was issued by the education officer of Kent county council to parents throughout the county, at a cost of £4,000? There were claims within it that various cuts would be made, despite the fact that Government funding for Kent has increased by 2 per cent. overall.

Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend had the courtesy to show me the leaflet. I believe that the officer concerned stepped over the mark. That officer has mistaken a majority view in the council for a view that should be passed on to the public. As I have said, I firmly believe that local authority officers have high standards. If, however, they are to retain their independence, they must retain party political independence.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Surely it is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to give us lessons in the use of local authority funding. When he was leader of Bradford council—this happened on the casting vote of the lord mayor—he took £13 million out of the council's budget and set the pubs of Bradford running.

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to remind him that, during my time, spending on or in schools increased, as did the number of teachers.
The reduction in teaching numbers came when the hon. Gentleman was leader of the council. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to apologise for that.
The most extravagant claims have been made about secondary schools. I am pleased that such schools in my constituency have been free from them. One of the reasons is that Brentwood and Ongar is the only constituency in which all secondary schools have opted out of the local authority's control. They are free, therefore, from political bias. I have little doubt that the shroud waving of Opposition Members will encourage others to join Brentwood and Ongar.
Parents in my constituency enjoy schools that are free from dogma. Mr. Leo McKinstry's description of a Labour administration
mean-minded cocktail of political correctness, bureaucracy, intervention and abuse of public money
when talking about Islington could well fit Essex county council, which is controlled by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats.
My constituents have been the victims of a combination of fuzzy dogma and incompetence. The county council is damaging them over a relatively small sum. They have been denied care in the community services. Beds in local hospitals are being blocked. Children are worried about the future of their elderly parents. It should not, and need not, have happened. It has, however, because the county council has decided to use the elderly as a battering ram.
No one ever thought that care in the community would be a cheap option. We always knew that it would be expensive. That is why the sum made available by the Government to Essex county council for care in the community was increased last year by £32 million. There will be an extra £18 million this year. Since 1990, the grant for care in the community to the county council has risen by 95 per cent.
My constituents have been the victims of poor decision making. There has been a transfer of about £500,000 from the care in the community budget to support inappropriate services, and the charging policy has been turned completely on its head, to the tune of £1.25 million. That is almost the exact sum that the county council chooses to take away from elderly people.
The county council has decided to end the policy of selling old persons' homes. I have some experience of this because I visited Brooks house. Before the election, I saw an old, rundown building where the staff offered excellent care. Unfortunately, it was not a place where elderly people should see out their last years. When it came to the surroundings, there was no dignity and no respect. The sale was fought hard by the Liberal Democrats; indeed, it has ended that policy. I had the pleasure of opening Brooks house last year under the new regime. What I saw there was respect for the elderly people, the same staff running it and a better organisation. Under the new regime, it is a lot cheaper and a lot better in the private sector. Essex county council could buy considerably more care under that process if it would follow the example of putting the care of those old persons into the private sector.
I firmly believe that it is within the power of Essex county council to use its not inconsiderable balance of £28 million to put care back where it is needed—into the hands of the elderly in my constituency.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) will forgive me, I hope, if I do not follow all the points in his speech, although I wish to refer to some of them.
It was refreshing to hear a voice from local government talking about the motion, because in your absence, Madam Speaker, the debate became a shambles. I have attended many of these debates. It was no fault of your deputy, Madam Speaker. The fault lay in the fact that the Secretary of State quite deliberately allowed interventions over and over again from Conservative Members. I know that a Secretary of State or a Minister gives way to interventions, but not repeatedly like that.
I have taken these motions many times in the House. I have proposed them from the Front Bench. One allows a few interventions, but one does not base one's speech on interventions. One should try to explain to the House what the motion is about. That the Secretary of State signally failed to do by talking about street signs in Suffolk and lesbian centres in Camden, by criticising the fact that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was not in the Chamber—all that sort of silly arguing. I wish that a video of the debate would be sent to every councillor, especially Conservative councillors, who, like us, are concerned with the community. They are caring people, just as Labour and Liberal councillors are caring people. They are colleagues of ours in a different sphere. To be treated in that way in what is probably the most important debate for local government was nothing but a disgrace.
The motion has been described as harsh. I would go further and say that it is intolerable, because local authorities will find not only that their services have diminished but that they will be unable to provide some services at all because of lack of money—not from malice, not from putting people in fear, but simply because they have run out of money for those particular services.
I am an honorary—I stress that word—vice-president of the Association of County Councils. It is opposed to the motion and finds it deplorable. I also represent a Cheshire constituency. I hasten to tell the Minister that it is not a Labour-controlled authority but an alliance between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats and they oppose the motion because of its injustice.
Let us take two Departments in central Government—the Department for Education and the Department of Social Security. I understand that the figures for this year—limited though they are—are 4.1 per cent. for education and 3.7 per cent. for social services. The actual figure this October, with all the changes in police orders, and so on, is 0.5 per cent. for each of those services in local government. That shows the disgraceful discrepancy between the way in which central Government treat themselves and the way in which they treat what should be their partner—local government.
I have another criticism, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whose intervention was on this subject. One reason why there are discrepancies between Cheshire, Derbyshire, Cleveland and Tyneside is that an area cost adjustment is built into the system. That adjustment is supposed to compensate for the fact that it is more expensive to pay staff in London and the south-east than in the rest of the country. That might have happened at one time, but I


challenge that assumption now on national wage bargaining. Even if there is some truth in it, it does not excuse the enormous advantage that counties and boroughs in the south-east have over the rest of the country. There is no way in which that can be excused. I do not think that it is a coincidence that most of the Conservative seats in the country are in the south-east.
I wish briefly to look at one service, because the motion covers a vast subject—social services, to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar rightly referred. It is central Government and local government at the sharp end. It is where the Government come into contact with the most distressed people in our society: the old, the sick, especially the mentally sick, and children, right at the centre of their lives. As Members of Parliament, we all know that. We see it in our surgeries and we gladly pass on those cases to the county or borough social services department. Alas, when we do that in future, many of those services will not be able to be provided, because the departments will not have the money after the settlement.
The ACC estimated the cost of such social services. There is a shortfall in the amount that departments are to be given under the motion—I have the figures, but will not go into them, as that would waste time—of £261 million. The people who will suffer are the old, the sick and children in need of care.
A couple of years ago, Cheshire county council introduced a system of charging for care. Now, I understand, more than one third of councils are forced to charge for care. As a result of the settlement, I guarantee that the percentage of councils that are forced to do that will be 100 per cent., because there is a built-in system whereby 9 per cent. is assumed to come from charges. We are talking about the most vulnerable section of the community. It is likely to come from the poorest—those not with low means but, in many cases, no means. There is no way in which a caring—even an uncaring—county council can recover those sums.
What will that mean, then, in human terms? We have debated the figures—they are major figures—but it comes down to human terms. One of the few ideas that the Government had was to implement the community care scheme. Everybody agreed to it—the Association of County Councils and every shire county. It is a far more humane system. The national health service has benefited from it, quite rightly, because people are better off in the community. Previously, people were institutionalised, either long term in a hospital or in some other institution. The community care scheme should have been the Government's flagship, but the transfer from the NHS has not been followed up and matched by a fair transfer of finance among the authorities.
What is happening now? We see it in our streets. In the community, local authorities have the responsibility of care; they would willingly provide that care, but they do not have the money to do so. The Secretary of State may say that that is because of waste or inefficiency, but that is not what the Audit Commission says. It is not what his own inspectors say when they examine how the community carries out the schemes.
We must look at the subject in human terms, in terms, for example, of the people who suffer from schizophrenia. There have been some dreadful, tragic cases, for the

person concerned and for his or her family, and sometimes the family of the victims. The money will not be available to provide the care needed.
We must think of special needs teachers. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) would have raised that matter had he not been upstairs in a Select Committee. We must think of children who need to be put in care as a result of sexual or other physical abuse: places will not be provided, as they were in the past. We must think of meals on wheels, and other services for elderly people. Those, too, will be cut.
Finally, we must think of the carers who save the country millions of pounds more than the revenue support grant, through the love and care that they devote to, for example, sufferers from Alzheimer's disease for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. At present, councils can provide places that allow those carers some respite, but they may not be able to do so in the future.
Many Conservative Members are as caring as Opposition Members. When they vote tonight, let them remember that.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I hope that the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) will not be offended if I do not follow his speech. It was an excellent speech, although I could not agree with all of it, but I am constrained by the time limit.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech was a marked and welcome contrast to that of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), which was boorish, ignorant, graceless and thoroughly uninformed. At least it had the virtue of being entirely consistent with every other speech that I have ever heard the hon. Gentleman make, and we should also give him credit for coming here to make it: that is more than can be said for the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who has played a significant part in the misrepresentation of the current settlement. Despite the steps that he has taken to misrepresent what is going on in the west country, the right hon. Gentleman could not even come to the House today. I find that remarkable, and think that it should be noted.
It is in the nature of politics that politicians, whether they are Labour, Liberal or Conservative, seek to put the best possible construction on their actions. Sometimes, the public feel that that amounts to dishonesty; I do not think that it does. Obviously, any political party will try to set out its stall as well as it can. However, what has happened in Devon in recent weeks goes far beyond that. The Liberal administration there has not merely put the best possible gloss on its own policies and the worst possible gloss on those of the Conservative Government; it has engaged in a campaign of deceit, disinformation and downright lying. I have a fairly thick skin in political terms—I need to—but that campaign is so appalling that even I have been surprised at not only what the Liberals have done but at the extent to which, so far, they have got away with it.
What the Liberals have done in Devon, and the way in which they have presented the position, is wicked, because it obscures the debate. If the Government had produced a settlement for Devon that was not fair, the


Liberals' behaviour and the fact that it can be rubbished so easily would actually make it harder to bring Ministers to account—if, indeed, they had to be brought to account.
We Members of Parliament make the mistake of thinking that, because we all understand—to a greater or lesser extent—the way in which local government is financed and the way in which it works, our constituents will understand it as well. Most of them do not. What parents know, certainly those in Devon, is that their children have only one opportunity of being educated. If the Conservatives sort out Devon's education service when they are returned to power there, it will not help someone who has already gone through the school system.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) used a phrase for which he was derided; he should not have been. Let me use the phrase again. What terrifies parents is that they do not know the minutiae of local government funding. They do not understand that a local education authority has certain functions to perform, and has discretion to set its own priorities; what they know is that they are being told by their councilors—their councillors would not lie to them, would they? Would they hell!—that there will be massive cuts in the classroom. Teachers will be made redundant, and parents are outraged about that.
Let me draw attention to one of the most unfortunate aspects of all this. If my hon. Friend the Minister cannot deal with it today, I put down a marker: I shall pursue the matter in correspondence. What the Liberals in the west country are saying has been given some credibility by the fact that local government officers are prepared to sign letters that are no more than the crudest party political propaganda. Those same officers are also prepared to speak on television programmes, doing the Liberals' dirty work for them. It is almost as though my hon. Friend the Minister had a tricky television interview coming up, and persuaded his departmental permanent secretary to do it for him.
We may wonder why professional council officers allow themselves to be traduced in that way. We can imagine the pressure that they must have felt themselves to be under, to allow their professional expertise to be employed and their cloak of apparent honesty to be thrown over the shoulders of the Liberals.
What are the Liberals up to? Any lie must be told in a big way. They have held briefings, and I have observed the results from telephone calls, letters and visits that I have received. People have been told that Devon county council will receive less money this year: that is the first thing that they have been told. Is that true? It is false. Last year, the police authority was maintained within the council, but it is now maintained separately. If we compare like with like, we find that there has been a 7.8 per cent. overall increase rather than a decrease.
Parents are being asked—in a sense, this is the chief criterion—whether Devon is performing better than the average, in an average way or worse than the average, and they find that it is performing far worse than the average. I have discovered from meetings that they have even been told that Devon is the worst-funded county in the United Kingdom. The truth is, however, that it has received the fifth largest standard spending assessment increase. As for educational SSA, it has received double the national average. At the mention of annual capital guidelines, parents' eyes will glaze over, but hon. Members understand the significance of those guidelines. They

specify what local education authorities can spend. Devon does not receive as much as it used to and it never will, but it receives about half as much again as the national average.

Mr. David Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Nicholls: No; time is short. My hon. Friend can make his own speech in his own way.
The Liberals say that an increase that is less than the increase they want is really a cut. They think that, if they say that long enough, someone will believe them. Once they have convinced parents that the cuts have been imposed by the Government—almost suggesting that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that there must be cuts in the provision of a particular school—we suddenly discover the existence of reserves. How did I find out about the reserves? A headmaster in my constituency telephoned me. He said, "Have a look at the papers. They have squirrelled away £17 million." When I said, "If there is £17 million there, why do you not take the matter up with the council?" he said, "It is more than my job is worth." There is a climate of fear in Devon. The headmaster will not even take the matter up with his own Member of Parliament.
What was the attitude of the Liberal county council to the reserves? On day one it denied that they existed; on day two it said that it was scandalous to suggest that they amounted to £17 million—there was only £16.8 million. We now discover from a written parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that there may be as much as £51 million.
The fact is—and parents in Devon needed to know this—that a local education authority can set its own agenda. It is entitled to decide its own priorities, and the priority of Devon county council is to threaten to cut the number of teachers, when in the past year it has increased staff numbers by a huge 718. Then it has the nerve to turn around and say that, because of Government action, it will have to cut pupil numbers. That is utterly dishonest. Here is a body that employs more people than the European Union, and it says that it must cut the number of teachers.
The LEA has a question to answer: where do its priorities lie? Is it concerned about core functions at county hall, or about services in county schools? I do not expect parents to accept uncritically everything that my hon. Friend the Minister will say; not do I expect them to accept uncritically anything that a Conservative Member of Parliament says. All that I will say to parents in Devon is this. Democracy is a two-way street, and citizens have a responsibility to see what is being done in their names. Yes, by all means send in the letters in their hundreds and question Conservative Members of Parliament about what they are doing, but also question the LEA, which has the funds to set its own priorities if it wishes. Ultimately, if parents question both Members of Parliament and the LEA, they should get the truth, but that process has not yet started in Devon. I should like to think that, as a result of tonight's debate, it will.

Mr. Don Foster: As I intend to touch on a number of education matters, it is important for me to


declare my interest as an adviser to two teacher associations. I assure the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that I shall shortly deal with his points.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Government have no love for local government. They do not like it, and they do not trust it. Therefore, they have set out systematically to destroy it, and they are doing that by reducing its powers, often giving them to remote, undemocratic quangos. In addition, as we have noticed in the debate, the Government are attempting to starve local government to death, and with it many of the much-needed and valued services that it provides. For evidence, we need only look at the settlement.
We all know the figures as they have been discussed already, but perhaps the best source of information is the press release issued by the Department of the Environment on 29 November last year. It states that, net of community care, the settlement represents a cash decrease of 0.4 per cent. As all hon. Members know, when inflation is taken into account, that means a significant cut in the amount of money being made available to local government. I do not need to refer to more up-to-date information, because figures contained in recent announcements are almost identical to those in that press release.
Despite all the delegations that came to plead with the Secretary of State and the Minister, very little has changed. Little notice has been taken of the people in those delegations, all of whom care about local government. The present cuts are on top of cuts in previous years. The Government are calling for local government fat to be removed, but the fat was removed many years ago. The flesh has now gone, and the bones will soon be bleached white.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) spoke about savings that were outlined in the Audit Commission report. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the report suggested about £540 million. I am sure he accepts that those savings were intended to be made over seven years, and that more than 50 per cent. of the report's recommendations have already been enacted.

Mr. John Sykes: The hon. Gentleman talks of fat in local government. Is he aware that, in my area, North Yorkshire county council received a 1 per cent. increase in this year's allocation but is complaining about drastic cuts? It wants to reduce the number of fire engines in Scarborough, although we all know what happened last year to the Richmond hotel. The council owns 13,000 acres of farmland in North Yorkshire, which is worth £10 million. There is no thought of selling that. Local authorities must be made to face difficult decisions. That council should be forced to decide whether it wants to provide fire engines or farmland.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to remind him that the sale of assets does not immediately make available to the local authority the whole of the proceeds. The Government limits the amount that can be

spent. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that, when assets are sold, the most useful use for the proceeds is to create new assets for the local authority.

Mr. Sykes: rose—

Mr. Foster: Madam Speaker has given me dispensation to go beyond the allotted time, but I have promised that I shall try to abide by the spirit of the 10-minute rule. Therefore, I will not give way.
The purpose of the cuts is clear. There will be cuts in the fire service, community care, library services, housing and roads, but the worst cuts will be in the education and youth services. The cuts in education will be across the board, but especially important is what will happen in the classroom. Those cuts are real. As many hon. Members know, even the Secretary of State for Education, in her letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, warned of the possibility of problems in education because of this settlement.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Why is the Liberal Democrat administration in Devon threatening massive cuts in the education budget, even though the administration has a surfeit of more than 700 people? Perhaps that is fat. How has the administration at Exeter managed to achieve more than double the average increase in the education SSA?

Mr. Foster: I shall be happy to deal with that when I reach that topic in my speech. I wish to set the national scene, and I shall then reply to the points that hon. Members have raised.
Within the settlement, the Government expect local education authorities to manage with less money per pupil. Of the 117 LEAs, only four have avoided a real-terms cut in their SSA. Across England, the cut is the equivalent of £50 per primary pupil and nearly £200 per secondary pupil. Altogether, that represents a cut of £750 million.
The Secretary of State said that local government must get its priorities right, but one must question the Government's priorities, because they say that there must be significant cuts in the amount spent on each pupil. That is based on the Secretary of State's figures.

Mr. Gummer: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is making general points, but perhaps I could make a specific one. In Devon and Somerset, Liberal administrations or Liberal-supported coalitions have increased the number of employees. There have been significant increases in the amount that those administrations receive from the Government, but they have written to schools telling them that there will be staff cuts. Those matters do not hang together, and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is not here to defend the words that he put in letters to Conservative Members. Many of us are beginning to wonder whether the Liberals are being honest on this.

Mr. Foster: The Secretary of State is repeating interventions that have already been made, to which I have promised to respond. He is taking up precious time. He knows that, because of the unfairness of the area cost adjustment, all the LEAs in the south-west are placed at a considerable disadvantage. On average, they have £130 per pupil less to spend in the classroom.
I said that I would reply to some specific points. Some hon. Members spoke about Somerset. Based on information provided by the Department for Education, in real terms the SSA per primary pupil in Somerset will be cut by £46. The cut for secondary pupils will be £147. The overall shortfall for the Somerset budget as calculated by the county treasurer is £20.4 million, of which £12.4 million is in the education budget generally and £9 million is in the schools budget in particular.
Although a number of Conservative councillors in Somerset initially disagreed, I understand that they have now accepted those figures from the county treasurer. The Devon figures show a cut of £46 per primary pupil and £178 per secondary pupil in real terms in the SSA in this settlement.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, I am not giving way again.
Many people fail to understand that marginal increases fail to take into account the increased number of pupils.
Right across England, local education authorities are expected to do more and more, with less and less. As one head teacher put it recently:
We are running a medium sized business on peanuts and goodwill".
As all right hon. and hon. Members know, standard spending assessment cuts will be compounded by the results of the teachers' pay award. Unless the Government fund that centrally, even less cash will be available for use in the classroom.
The Prime Minister told us that education was one of his Government's top priorities. Today, the Secretary of State for the Environment told us that education was at the heart of the needs of the nation. The settlement, however, shows that neither the Secretary of State nor the Prime Minister are putting our money as taxpayers where their mouths are. They would rather put their party before this country's future. Instead of investing in education, they want to cut money from it, giving themselves room for tax cut bribes before the next election. But they have been rumbled.

Mr. King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No. [Interruption.] I have already said that I would not give way again. You, Madam Speaker, have asked me to comply with the 10-minute ruling for speeches.
The nation knows that every right hon. and hon. Member who votes for the settlement tonight—that includes the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—is voting for teachers to be sacked, for rising class sizes, for less money for books and equipment in our schools, and for less money for much-needed repair and maintenance. Worst of all, they are voting to ensure that no real possibility exists of the much-needed expansion of nursery education.
Conservative central Government have admitted that the settlement is tight for education and for all other local government services. The Secretary of State called it a "tough" settlement. It is far worse than that—it is a deplorable settlement. Anyone who cares about local government and the services it provides should vote against it tonight.

Mr. King: Will the hon. Gentleman answer one question?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has sat down.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I do not want to follow the line that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) elocuted in his speech, because it is not worth following.
I praise one of my councils—Derbyshire Dales district council. Its standard spending assessment was some £6,069,000, and it is estimated that it will spend some £6,007,000. Basically, that results in a reduction of 8.1 per cent. for the council tax payer in Derbyshire Dales.
I am grateful that that council has managed to achieve that within what I accept has been a tight settlement. I praise all members of Derbyshire Dales for their prudent running of the local authority. They have reduced the community tax, and, at the same time, total council expenditure contains growth of 3.4 per cent. and inflation of 3.3 per cent. They deserve praise for the way in which they have run a prudent and efficient system.
Yet again, Derbyshire county council has been using its usual tactics to frighten everyone about the implications of its spending settlement. I say "its usual tactics", and I have slight evidence for that. I was looking through some papers this morning, and I came across a report from the county treasurer. It states:
Taking the above factors into account, the County Treasurer anticipated the County Council operating in circumstances where the cost of maintaining services based on a realistic estimate of pay and price increases, amounted to £470 million, whilst the Secretary of State's assumption on Derbyshire's level of spending was £435 million, a reduction of £35 million.
He said that that £35 million would mean the cutting of one of the following:
2500 teachers, the entire regular police force, maintaining County roads and supporting public transport, residential and support services for children, and elderly and physically handicapped people.
That report was presented on 16 December 1987.
The problem is that, year in and year out, we hear such arguments from local authorities about the way in which they run their services. They then tell us that they should be allowed to continue in their present form. My right hon. Friend has in front of him the Derbyshire review. I do not believe that Derbyshire county council is an efficient service provider, and I hope that he will carefully take that into account when he considers his response to that review.
I accept that much of the money is spent on education. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned school meals. We know about school meals in Derbyshire because, in the past 14 years, Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council has spent more than £100 million on subsidising school meals. If that £100 million had gone into schools and education, the council would be in a far better state to provide services.
Providing those services would have been better than subsidising my children to go to those schools and to have cheap meals. What nonsense. How stupid and ridiculous. Yet the hon. Gentleman sought to defend that argument. I find that unbelievable.

Mr. Charles Hendry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Derbyshire council has an abysmal record in the amount of money that it holds back for central administration? Will he confirm that, if it was as efficient as Nottinghamshire council, which itself is not


very efficient, it would have another £70 to spend per child in schools? That would be better than spending the money on its bureaucrats in county hall.

Mr. McLoughlin: That fact has come out of the research that we have done. Derbyshire county council may score high on spending, but its allocation on schools is the lowest of any shire county. It spends more on central administration than any other county. I am not proud of that record, because I would prefer money to go into schools.
Until a few years ago, there was no option in the state system. All schools were run by the local education authority. Back in 1988, I was pleased to be parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold). We took the Education Reform Act 1988 through the House, which allowed schools to become grant-maintained.
Now, there is another option for education. I welcome that option, because it makes Derbyshire county council be careful about some of the nonsensical decisions that it has taken in the past. We had the crazy situation in which all school notepaper was taken back to county offices to be overprinted with "Derbyshire supports nuclear-free zones." It has become a bit better in recent times.
I should like to share with the House some of the experiences of schools that have gone grant-maintained. The head teacher of Belper high school said recently:
The school has benefited from enhanced funding because although we are linked to the Derbyshire formula the element for central costs can be spent specifically to meet our own needs. Independence enables us to manage our finances far more effectively because we have full control. We received an emergency grant from the DFE to replace our twenty-year-old boilers. Queries are always answered promptly and clearly by the DFE which has made the task of management much easier.
Dr. Dupey, the head of Ecclesbourne school, said:
The last four years have been the most professionally fulfilling of nearly two decades of headship. Not only have we been able to put right most of the physical deficiencies of the School's site and buildings, we have been able to assign a much higher proportion of what was our share of the resources allocated to Derbyshire for education to the business of teaching and learning. The effort wasted on petty politics and bureaucracy has also been significantly reduced, leaving more time, energy and enthusiasm to devote to the needs of our students.

Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is probably the reason why the leader of the Labour party has chosen a grant-maintained school for his child? He knows that the money will be spent on the child and not on the bureaucracy.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend knows this, but it is even worse than that. As I understand it, only one school in the country has opted out of the national pay negotiations. I shall not give my right hon. Friend any prizes for guessing which school that is.
We have a further alternative in the education system. That is a positive step.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. McLoughlin: I would rather not give way, because I have a great deal to say.
I could speak on this subject for a long time, but time is short. There are alternatives for education.
I am particularly concerned about the area cost adjustment. Some of us wonder whether the Department of the Environment has got the formula right. It should be looked at. It might mean that some London boroughs will have to lose money. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) did the House a disservice by spending 25 minutes talking about London. Many hon. Members are much more interested in what is happening in the rest of the country than in history lessons about Westminster. Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the area cost adjustment?
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Chief Secretary, he talked about the pay review bodies reporting after local authority budgets had been set. That does put local authorities in an awkward position, in that they do not know what the pay settlements will be in the coming year. It should be looked at. It is not fair that they should find out what the pay review bodies say after they have set their budget. That is not the most efficient way to move forward.
I have no doubt that we will hear the same bleating as we have heard over the past few months—some of which may be genuine. Scaring parents is deplorable and does no credit to the people involved. Year after year, we hear the same excuses. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to use every opportunity to expose what the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are trying to do, and to explain what the outcome will be.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The only point on which I agree with the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) is his concern about the area cost adjustment.
This year's revenue support grant settlement is a great disappointment to Durham county council, which provides services in my constituency. It appears to have been severely punished under the capping regime for having adopted a cautious and realistic approach to past spending.
For a long time, the county council has sought changes to the area cost adjustment, but it has been ignored. It is the county council's contention, and mine, that the area cost adjustment is fundamentally flawed. It is now three times higher than five years ago and it has grown six times faster than local authority resources generally in that period. Some local authorities may need to be compensated for labour cost variations, but it is difficult to understand the size and distribution of the compensation—or perhaps that was explained to us earlier. It could have something to do with the political control of certain councils in the south of England, but perhaps I am being cynical.
The settlement is divorced from reality. The three major employment groups are teachers, the police and firefighters, who are all on nationally agreed wage scales. Durham county council, like many other authorities outside south-east England, has been deprived of its fair share of SSA.
The capping limit has been increased since last year's settlement, but it is well below last year's level for Durham county council. I appreciate that some factors have changed in the calculation of SSAs. Nevertheless,


the county will have to save £14.5 million this year to set a budget at the capping limit. If it is to save that money, it will have to make cuts, including in administration, to maintain services to the community. It is inevitable that services will suffer. Specific decisions have not yet been taken, but, without doubt, some appalling cuts will be made. That is not scaremongering. Libraries will close.
Durham county council has given schools funding of £1.5 million to take into account the increase in pupil numbers. The Government have ignored that cost and have failed to provide any extra funds to pay for the cost of the teachers' pay settlement in 1995–96. That will have dire consequences on school budgets.
Road maintenance schemes will be cut by £500,000 and public transport support will have to be cut. Economic development, to which the council has attached great priority in recent years because the Government closed the mines and the steelworks in the north, will be severely cut.
I accept that the money transferred to social services under the special transitional grant is sizeable, but it is inadequate to meet needs, particularly the growing number of private nursing home places. Consequently, those services will come under significant pressure and will face cuts. Community care in Durham is under threat.
Cuts are not being made for the first time—far from it. In 1991–92 the council had to cut £1 million; in 1992–93 it had to cut £4.2 million; in 1993–94 it had to cut £6.9 million and in 1994–95 it will have to cut £10 million. It cannot go on.

Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Steinberg: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not do so; I have a lot to say.
Durham county council's education committee has been instructed by the policy resources committee to cut £2.125 million from its budget. No final decision has been made, but the cuts may include a reduction in education welfare posts, an increase in outdoor education charges, cuts in swimming provision, cuts in child guidance and an increase in school meal prices. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire may disagree, but many children need subsidised or free meals because it is often the only decent meal that they get during the day. Cuts will be made in resources for local education authority initiatives and in the GEST—grants for education support and training—programme.
School budgets will have to be cut because the Government have reduced the SSA calculations in Durham by £95 per primary school child and £195 for each secondary school pupil. As I have already said, the Government have made no provision for teachers' pay increases.
That scandal means that the council has no alternative but to reflect those cuts in school budgets. In addition to failing to fund teachers' pay increases, the Government have failed to recognise the increase in the number of students or to take account of inflation. Schools will have to deal with those factors themselves.
What does that mean to individual schools? The head teacher of Durham Johnston school told me that if his funding is cut by 4 per cent., which seems likely, he will have to find £120,000 from his budget. Apart from staffing, which accounts for 80 per cent. of his budget, he will have to cut repairs and maintenance to his school, he

will have to stop purchasing any new furniture or replacing computers. He will have to reduce ground maintenance and cut a large percentage from the allocation to subject departments to buy books and equipment. Mr. Dunford, the head teacher, wrote to me and said:
This school now has just over 1,400 pupils, including a Sixth Form of 280. It is, as you know, popular and over-subscribed. In short, it is not the sort or school which we were led to believe would have financial problems under the LMS formula. But there are no safe havens now—all schools are facing a very difficult financial year. If this were to be an isolated school year, the situation would look bad, but what concerns me even more is that we are told that the Department of the Environment intends to follow the same policy in local government finance for the next two years. If we are asked to prune our budget by a similar amount in 1996 and 1997, I do not believe that it will be possible to educate all children full-time up to the age of 16. We will not be able to afford the staff to be able to do so.
I believe that the situation is reaching a crisis point".
That reveals a desperate situation. Those are the words of one of the country's most respected head teachers—I am not exaggerating as I believe he is vice-president of the Secondary Heads Association and serves on many national bodies. If a head teacher of his renown is saying such things, we are certainly in a deplorable state.
Even the Secretary of State for Education wrote to her Cabinet colleagues recently about the effect that the teachers' pay award would have on school budgets. She recognised that schools were in an impossible position. She has already urged the Prime Minister to cut any recommendations of the independent—or so-called independent—teachers' pay review body to 1.5 per cent. She recognises that local education authorities cannot pay any more. Once again, teachers are going to be punished thanks to the inadequacy of this year's local government finance settlement. The independent review body should recommend a fair pay settlement and the Government should fund it fully.
The revenue settlement this year clearly shows the Government's lack of commitment to state education and, in particular, to teachers. If the Government had any real commitment to the state system, they would ensure that schools were well resourced and teachers were well rewarded for their work, but all that we get from them is rhetoric. In the meantime, however, millions of children go on suffering in our schools.

Mr. Michael Carttiss: I shall read my speech very quickly and I shall not take any interventions.
I do not dissent too much from the speeches made by right hon. and hon. Members who are in the Conservative parliamentary party and I am grateful to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), for seeing representatives of Norfolk county council on 4 January. His hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), wrote to me on 27 January about that meeting. His letter states:
At the meeting the council representatives asked for a higher spending limit for Norfolk and spelt out their particular concerns on the reduction in Education SSA, on the Area Cost Adjustment, and on personal social services. These views will of course be taken into account by the Secretary of State prior to making his decisions on the 1995/96 Local Government Finance (England) Report and the Special Report.


My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) spoke about the area cost adjustment and reflected the considerable concern that exists in many counties, irrespective of party control, about the unfair way in which it works.
The result of Norfolk county council representatives' meeting with the Minister of State was that, between the announcement on 1 December of Norfolk's revenue support grant settlement and today's debate, Norfolk's grant was cut by £210,000 by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench.
Norfolk has consistently spent well below the average for English counties. Suffolk is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), who intervened on a fellow Member—the Secretary of State—who represents another Suffolk constituency, to complain about the Lib-Lab way in which Suffolk was being run. Curiously enough, despite knowing the bad way in which it is being run, the Secretary of State has given Suffolk an increase of £300,000 since 1 December.
Surrey's grant goes up by £2.69 million. I accept that it is a big county and has high expenditure but the increase goes down very badly with my constituents in Norfolk, bearing in mind the fact that, in 1992–93, Norfolk county council spent £584.54 per head on county-provided services whereas the average figure for English counties in the same period was £613.78. The county council has a spending limit set by the Government of £424.4 million. The county treasurer calculates that this represents a shortfall of £20 million on projected expenditure in 1995–96.
As several right hon. and hon. Members have said, local authorities want to spend more. Most people, including Conservatives, seek local government service because they want to promote improved services for their communities but county treasurers cannot always have as much as they want.
Norfolk has a long history of strict economy when budgeting and it has every reason tonight to expect as many of its parliamentary representatives as possible to impress on the Government, as have other right hon. and hon. Members, that enough is enough."— [Official Report, 20 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 93.]
I quote further:
Norfolk has been a sensible, moderate, low-spending authority".—[Official Report, 25 July 1985; Vol. 83, c. 1331.]
Those are the words of the then Secretary of State for the Environment, which I cited in my speech on 20 January 1986. The Secretary of State who spoke appreciatively of Norfolk when he announced the 1986–87 RSG settlement on 25 July 1985 was the then right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, now Lord Jenkin.
On the night of 20 January I also said:
Socialists and Liberals have never controlled Norfolk county council, and they never will, because I am confident that, recognising the strength of feeling among Conservative Members, the Government will introduce a more equitable system next year."—[Official Report, 20 January 1986: Vol.90, c.95.]
In fact, my predictions were doubly wrong: the Government did not introduce a more equitable system and nor have they done so for Norfolk today. My prediction about the election result was wrong because in 1993, for the first time in the history of my county, we were lumbered with a Lib-Lab alliance to run our affairs. I partly blame the Government for that result.
The overall increase allowed for in funding essential county services in Norfolk is 0.5 per cent. If the Government had said on 28 November that they were going to limit the increase in their contribution to the European Union budget to 0.5 per cent., I would still be a member of the parliamentary party because I would have voted for that. However, we are giving money to the European Union but are making our own local authorities impose cuts.
People who say that there will be no cuts are wrong—of course there will. One cannot increase overall expenditure by a mere 0.5 per cent. at a time of 2 per cent. inflation without making cuts. Let us not be mealy-mouthed about that. If the European Union can have the money, so can Norfolk. I want it spent on schools in Great Yarmouth and on highway maintenance in my villages, not on subsidies for tobacco growers in Greece and olive growers in Italy.
This afternoon, the Secretary of State for the Environment talked about the difficult decisions faced by the Government in restraining and reducing their own spending. In fact, the Department of Health—

Mr. John Sykes: Norfolk has assisted area status.

Mr. Carttiss: Someone is interrupting although I said that I would not accept interventions. He is saying that my constituency has assisted area status but we got precious little money back from Europe for that.
The Department of Health's budget, quite rightly, goes up by 3.8 per cent. this year. The Department of Education's budget rightly goes up by 4.1 per cent. Very difficult decisions have to be taken by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench to limit central Government expenditure—4.1 per cent. on education and 3.8 per cent. on health—but, at the same time, they are telling local authorities, which have to run such services locally, that they will receive an increase of only 0.5 per cent.
On that famous night of 20 January 1986, to which I referred, 29 Conservative Back Benchers voted against the Government. None of them lost the Whip; some of them were ex-Cabinet Ministers—Lord Pym, Lord Prior and Lord Gilmour—and some of are in the Government now. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) voted against the Government in 1986; he is now Minister of State in the Treasury. He should know that if the settlement was not good enough when it was much higher in 1986, this year's settlement is not good enough.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is now a Minister of State in the Foreign Office and I accept entirely that he cannot be expected to worry about revenue support grants, but he voted against the Government that night. Look how these people get on when they vote against the Government.
Notably, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the Member for Hertfordshire, West, wrote to me-I quoted from his letter—and told me that Norfolk could manage and that the settlement was fair and equitable. It was not fair and equitable to him when he voted against the Government on 20 January 1986. Now, as Under-Secretary for the Environment, he is telling me that 0.5 per cent is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. This is all very interesting as a defence of the hon. Gentleman's case, but could he get down to local government finance?

Mr. Carttiss: I am drawing attention to the fact that right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Bench say one thing when they are where I am, yet when they have a chance to put into effect what they said when they were on the Back Benches, they conveniently forget it. If that is not relevant to my contention that Norfolk has been treated badly, I do not know what is. However, I defer to your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as the clock shows that my time is up, I shall conclude with three quarters of my condemnation of the Government happily left unsaid.

Mr. David Clelland: I shall speak about the problems faced by the city of Newcastle upon Tyne, although similar problems face the metropolitan borough of Gateshead, which, as a recent written answer to a question asked my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) showed, has the unenviable record of being eighth out the 10 authorities that have lost the largest sum through the changes to the education standard spending assessment formula.
Tyne and Wear fire and civil defence authority is facing a £1.8 million cut in its budget, which will result in a loss of jobs and will affect our emergency services, with consequent threats to life and limb. In that context, I draw the House's attention to early-day motion 489, which 27 hon. Members and I have signed.
Hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that the settlement is harsh. I must remind them that it is harsh not on Labour councils, which no doubt is the intention, but on the people who will lose their services and the many who will lose their jobs.
Newcastle's SSA is £224 million. The provisional capping criteria allow the city to spend 0.5 per cent., when, as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) has just reminded us, inflation is 2.5 per cent. If the capping criteria are unchanged, Newcastle will have to cut £5 million from its budget of £239 million to meet the cap limit.
Cuts of £5 million require a £2.3 million net cut in education, a £750,000 net cut in social services and a £650,000 net cut in leisure services. Two million pounds will be taken from schools, which will result in the loss of the music service, £100,000 will be taken from libraries, which will result in branch closures, £300,000 will be taken from child care services, which will result in the closure of nursery and welfare rights projects, the number of social workers and occupational therapists will be reduced and residential homes for the elderly, respite day provision and day centres will close.
Those cuts will be made despite the fact that in the past five years £40 million—almost 20 per cent. of the budget—has already been cut, resulting in 1,500 redundancies, the loss of 2,500 jobs and a loss of services. I say to Conservative Members who accuse us of spreading scare stories that since 1989 pupil-teacher ratios in Newcastle have risen from 14.4:1 to 16:1 in the secondary sector, eight homes for the elderly, three residential homes for children and two day centres have

closed, the library book fund has been cut by 28 per cent., branch library opening hours have been reduced by 13 per cent. and the arts budget has been cut by 15 per cent.
All that has happened despite Government recognition, under city challenge and other initiatives, that the city needs more, not less, help. How can it possibly make sense that a day nursery in Scotswood in my constituency faces possible closure, when the policies of the same Government made that place the centre of the city challenge area? If the Government's present policies persist, Newcastle will face a further three years of cuts worth £20 million, resulting in the loss of another 1,000 jobs.
None of that is desirable and none of it is wanted by the people of Newcastle. The stark reality is that none of it is necessary. When the Government's revenue support grant to the city is added to other income and to council tax income, the total is sufficient to maintain services at current levels and to avoid the painful cuts to which I have referred. The nonsense of the capping criteria is such that the council cannot spend at that level and is therefore obliged to cut council tax by £70 in band D, rather than maintain jobs and services.
That was explained to the people of the city by the local evening newspaper, the Evening Chronicle. In a survey of opinion, it reported that people were in favour of maintaining the council tax at its current level to avoid cuts by a ratio of 20:1. That opinion has been further confirmed in the city today, where a huge demonstration against Government-imposed cuts has taken place.
If Newcastle were allowed to freeze its council tax and set a budget at that level, there would be no net service cuts in the city. If Newcastle were given the inner-London capping criteria, the cuts would be reduced by £1.7 million and council tax would fall by £50 in band D and 'by £33 in band A. If the city were given the same support as Westminster, it would be able to improve services and give council tax payers money back.
If the capping criteria are not changed, Newcastle will be forced to consider for the first time the possibility of setting a budget above the provisional cap, just as Shropshire and other councils are. Like Shropshire, the appeal to the Secretary of State to recognise Newcastle's problems was supported by Tory and Liberal Democrat councillors from the city.
All those facts are a vindication of Labour's policies to decentralise power and give it back to local communities. When the people of Newcastle, or anywhere else, are prepared to pay for a service in their own communities, based on their knowledge of the needs of their community, why should some Minister in an ivory tower in London tell them that they cannot make those decisions and that they will have to cut taxes, despite the consequences and their own wishes? It is a clear example of the erosion of local democracy under this Government and it emphasises the importance of Labour's policies to restore to the people of the regions, the nations and the localities of Britain the power to pursue their policies according to their priorities and at their pace. All those who believe in local democracy should join us in the Lobby and vote against the motion.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Somerset has already featured in the debate and it has been a source


of considerable controversy, especially locally, where the Liberal Democrats have been at their campaigning best in sending out petitions, organising letters and shouting and screaming about the education budget that they, of course, have decided to impose on the county. Indeed, the Somerset county council policy and resources committee aims to secure a reduction of £12.5 million in the education budget. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has written to all Somerset Conservative Members of Parliament urging them to vote against the settlement. I am always prepared to consider representations from any source, but it is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not stick his head into the Chamber for just a few minutes to listen to the debate when he is urging us to vote against the settlement.

Mr. Gummer: Did my hon. Friend notice that, although we were promised clearly by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), that he would explain how Somerset could increase the number of people it employed by more than 3 per cent. and how it could receive significant extra sums this year, but that that meant there had to be a cut in the education budget, he did not manage to get to that point in his extremely long speech? Does my hon. Friend know the answer?

Mr. Robinson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already provided the answer to that point, although I hope to develop it later.
Because of the way in which Somerset's local management formula works on schools, the budget will be very harsh if the county council persists in its course of action. That would be extremely disappointing for many people because Somerset county council has been doing very well in the education league and, over recent years, it has brought its pupil-teacher ratio up to the national average.
There is no doubt that this year's settlement is difficult, but we must ask whether Somerset county council's response is legitimate in those circumstances. Together with my Conservative colleagues in Somerset, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), I have examined the county council's proposals. We agree that alternative strategies could he followed which would protect Somerset's education budget from the kind of unjustified pressure that will be placed on it if the Liberal Democrats have their way.
We are supported in our view by the very experienced Conservative leadership on the county council, including the well-respected former chairman of the education committee, Councillor Bea Roberts. As part of our scrutiny of the county council's budget, we uncovered underspending in this year's budget.
I suppose that we should not be surprised that, since the Liberal Democrats took control two years ago, meetings allowances and travelling expenses have escalated, as has already been pointed out. A recent Audit Commission report shows that the size of the council's legal staff is well above average and record sums have been spent on legal costs.
However, Somerset has had no difficulty finding the funds to protect its anti-hunting crusade. One moment it takes steps to remove travellers from its land at Podimore in my constituency and the next moment it invites them back to spend a month-long Christmas holiday there, to the fury of local landowners who have suffered damage and threats to their livestock.
We now have a tight settlement, but the council's so-called community initiatives, which involve the establishment of information points or offices in 13 Somerset towns, seem to be more important than protecting teachers' jobs. There is no question of cutting those initiatives.
Some of the things that I have mentioned may involve only small amounts of money, but they all add up. At no stage is there a suggestion that an audit of expenditure should take place to discover whether further savings can be found. We believe that such an audit should be carried out as a matter of urgency.
However, larger sums can also be identified. For example, the county's capital fund could produce over £2 million with some judicious postponement of planned projects until the funding improves. In addition, revenue balances could be utilised and, if I am not mistaken, those balances are net of cap. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that when he replies.
The county council has informed me that those balances amount to £9 million. However, I understand that the Department of the Environment estimated a substantial cash balance of £36.4 million on I April 1994. Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm his Department's view of the state of Somerset's cash balances, given the different figures that are now being bandied about?
What is so typical of the Liberal Democrats is that they refuse point blank to discuss or consider any alternative ideas. I can only conclude that their strategy is to put party advantage first and children's education second. That is already clear. The weakness of the Liberal Democrats' argument is shown not just by the fact that the right hon. Member for Yeovil could not take part in what he regarded as a very important debate, but in the fact that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) would not give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater. The weakness of the argument can he exposed very easily and it is exposed by our very experienced county councillors who have drawn up their alternative budget.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already stated that the settlement proposes an increase in spending. However, local Liberal Democrat-inspired petitions talk about the "massive cut" in funding from central Government. How can an overall increase in SSA for Somerset of 1.4 per cent. compared to the overall county average of 0.6 per cent. be considered a massive cut? It is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member for Bath was not prepared to give way to my right hon. Friend, so I do not see why I should give way to him.

Mr. Sebastian Coe: Will my hon. Friend thank the chief executive of Somerset county council for passing on to me, and to my two colleagues in Cornwall, some remarkably helpful information which I have with me in the Chamber? That


information supports my hon. Friend's point and it reveals the lie about massive cuts. Cornwall county council's total spend per head of population is £589.60, which is £18 higher than the county average. How on earth can that be portrayed as a cut? We are talking about priorities which are being set by Liberal Democrat councillors.

Mr. Robinson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The information with which he has been provided shows that Wiltshire's provisional SSA provision per head is below that of Somerset, but I understand that Wiltshire is making no cuts in its education budget. That supports the argument of the Conservative leaders on Somerset county council.
With regard to education, the SSA is up by 2.5 per cent. in Somerset compared with an average of 1.1 per cent. across the counties. It seems that Liberal Democrats do not care about children or teachers; they care only about securing political advantage by any means at their disposal.
As my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, my right hon. and hon. Friends in Somerset and I, together with the right hon. Member for Yeovil, have joined county councillors of all persuasions to press for a modernisation of the area cost adjustment formula which appears weighted against the south-west, mainly through outdated criteria.
I give the people of Somerset an assurance that we shall continue to press our case on that score. In supporting the motion tonight, I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see that the current reviews of methodology are given a sense of urgency. We met the Minister last summer about that. Progress must now be made to bring the matter to a conclusion to ensure that we do not have to return to this argument next year.

Mr. John Evans: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate and I make no apology for returning to a theme that I have pursued for the past four or five years—the continuing disgraceful treatment that the people of St. Helens receive from the Government in the annual revenue support grant settlements.
Local government finance is a difficult and complex subject, but it directly affects every man, woman and child in my constituency. When they receive neither justice nor fairness, they have a right to expect a Member of Parliament to speak out on their behalf in the Chamber. St. Helens has consistently been treated unfairly by the system, although, at the same time, the council has striven to improve the delivery of service to the public.
Staffing in St. Helens council has been reduced by 11 per cent. since 1992, and overall spending has been reduced by £13 million over the past two years, but the system continues to discriminate against the council. In 1995–96, the council faces further cuts of more than £7 million to avoid capping, but council tax payers face an increase of more than 14 per cent. due to losses in revenue support grant. It will be impossible for St. Helens to fund any increase in teachers' salaries in the coming months.
The Government frequently imply that, in some way, the problems of St. Helens are due to inefficiency on the part of the Labour council. Indeed, in an intervention, the Secretary of State hinted as much again tonight. Is St. Helens council inefficient'? It is not, according to the

district auditor who, on several occasions in the past few years, has praised the council. Indeed, last year he gave it a glowing report.
The district auditor's report for 1993–94, which was produced in December, praised the council's work in relation to the implementation of the citizens charter, the quality of children's services, the financial management of schools within the borough, progress in implementing care in the community, and progress on issues that the district auditor raised in previous reports. He finished his comments by saying:
We are pleased to confirm that the Authority has made good progress towards implementing the recommendations made in these reports, consequently there are no issues we would wish to draw to members' attention.
The auditor's reports make it absolutely clear that St. Helens is a well-run, efficiently managed council. However, that cannot be said about the London borough of Westminster, whose previous auditor's report three years ago was a devastating exposé of maladministration and corruption, with senior councillors and officers threatened with a £21 million surcharge, which is still hanging over them. There have been no further auditor's reports on Westminster over the past couple of years, so God alone knows what the current position is. It is sufficient to draw attention to the front page of today's edition of The Guardian. It is revealed that, according to documents which have been leaked,
Thousands of people who bought council flats in the Conservative run city of Westminster have been given unlimited free repairs to their homes for life, under a deal revealed in a confidential report by the council's own auditors.
Incredibly, the Government do not accept that Westminster council is corrupt and inefficient. Indeed, Tory Members claims that the reasons for Westminster's low council tax are its efficiency and enterprise. I ask hon. Members to consider the reply to me by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 18 January. He said that the average council tax for a band D property in St. Helens
is £652 and for Westminster £245. If St. Helens were to spend at the same rate as Westminster relative to standard spending assessment, the band D council tax in St. Helens would be £224—even lower than in Westminster."—[Official Report, 18 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 698.]
Even the Prime Minister, in reply to a question that I put to him on 3 May 1994, referred to
some of the reasons why Westminster is so efficient".—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 589.]
However, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, in answer to my supplementary question, said:
To describe St. Helens and Westminster as broadly similar authorities is ridiculous".—[Official Report,18 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 698.]
I decided to investigate further the two metropolitan boroughs, Westminster and St. Helens, which have exactly the same statutory duties placed upon them by Her Majesty's Government. I used the citizens charter for the information, because it requires local authorities to publish their performance indicators. I discovered that 96 per cent. of housing repair jobs in St. Helens are completed within target times, whereas in Westminster the figure is 7 per cent. In St. Helens, 5 per cent. of tenants owe 13 weeks' rent or more, and in Westminster the figure is 10 per cent.
Management costs per dwelling per week in St. Helens are £4, and in Westminster they are £21. In St. Helens 14 per cent. of benefits claims are processed within 14 days, and in Westminster it is 66 per cent. In St. Helens, 92 per cent. of housing benefits claims are processed within 14 days, and in Westminster the figure is 76 per cent. The gross cost of administration per claimant in St. Helens is £64 and in Westminster it is £226. As for the council tax, the percentage of net yield collected in St. Helens is 100 per cent., and in Westminster it is 91 per cent. The net cost of collection per dwelling is £16 in St. Helens and £25 in Westminster.
No one could seriously dispute that, on that information, which has been supplied by the authorities themselves, St. Helens is far more efficient than Westminster.
On many occasions I have drawn attention to the huge differences between the Government's SSAs for St. Helens and those for Westminster in respect of education and social services. Tonight, because of the time constraints, I shall refer to only one example, and that is children in care. The SSA for St. Helens is £30,000 per child per annum. In Westminster, it is £50,000 per child per annum. It is nonsense that Westminster should receive £20,000 more per child.
Another interesting matter is highways and street lighting. Incredibly, the boroughs are rather similar. St. Helens has a greater length of roads, whereas Westminster has more traffic flow and more visitors. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the effect of extra traffic and visitors in respect of maintenance costs. According to Her Majesty's Government, it is significant. The SSA per 1 km of road in St. Helens is £8,004, and in Westminster it is £28,895. Extra traffic can add considerably to maintenance costs, but surely not to the extent of £20,000 per 1 km of road.
How much strain do visitors to Westminster place on the council's finances? It is no less than £3.7 million. That shows just how much additional SSA is paid to Westminster in respect of highways and for "visitor nights".
St. Helens and Westminster serve similar populations. The resident population of St. Helens is more than 180,000, and that of Westminster is 189,000, but how much do those authorities need to spend on services such as leisure, libraries, parks, car parking and refuse collection? The amount that is allowed to St. Helens for those services is £27.2 million. The figure for Westminster is nearly £109 million.
I shall put the matter into perspective. When Westminster spends £1 on services, it is required to ask for only 3p from the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Like many other hon. Members, in particular those who have had some local government experience, I do not deny that it is a tough, tight settlement. Nevertheless, it is entirely defensible and entirely manageable. Indeed, it would be totally hypocritical if I argued with the Treasury that Government spending should he kept down, as I have

done consistently, and then ignored £43.5 billion out of total Government expenditure of £262 billion at the first whiff of grapeshot. Indeed, I appreciate that the 1.5 per cent. increase for Hereford and Worcester overall is a tough settlement. The settlement for education is 2.3 per cent. Nevertheless, it is an increase, and 2.3 per cent. is only marginally less than the rate of inflation.
It is entirely unjustified for somebody like Russ Clayton, the chairman of the county council, to try to scaremonger among parents in the county by arguing that there will be significant reductions in services before he knows how many pupils he will have to educate, before he knows what the teachers' pay settlement will be and before he even knows the final details of the SSA education settlement.
We were talking about the distribution mechanism of SSA. I suppose that nothing is perfect, and everybody will have their own point of view on the matter. Nevertheless, it is worth saying that a recent study by Rita Hare of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and Tony Travers of the London School of Economics stated that no overseas country appears to have a full grant system which goes so far in its attempt to achieve full equalisation. I was going to say—in an awful pun—that that means that what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said was an absolute travesty. I believe that reforms are continuing to be made to the SSA mechanism, and it is as fair as we can get, although I have one or two things to say about matters which I believe should be reformed.
That there is room for economies in a service that nationally spends £43.5 billion is beyond doubt. For instance, my district council—I was happy to recommend that it was capped to protect local council tax payers from its profligacy—spends no less than £10.5 million; fully 25 per cent. above its SSA. If one bears in mind what neighbouring authorities of a similar type spend on their SSA, it shows the excessive expenditure of the council.
What is more, the council—despite the fact that it is spending £1 million more than its capping limit—has had to take money out of its reserves. No specific attempt has been made by the district council to cut back and make the long-term economies which would mean that services are protected and the council tax thereby reduced.
It is significant that, from 1987 to 1993, non-manual costs of local government rose by 85 per cent. It is equally significant that the Audit Commission has suggested—the House should not forget that the vast majority of costs in local government are staff costs—that few authorities have a consistent or coherent approach to crucial questions such as how many staff they need, how much they should be paid and how they can get the best from their staff.
I have four points about the mechanism this year. First, although I was in favour of having my district council capped to protect local council tax payers, I do not believe that that is desirable in the long term. It is a matter of some regret that now only 20 per cent. of local expenditure is raised locally.

Mr. McLoughlin: Less than that.

Mr. Coombs: It may well be less. It is unfortunate because it breaks the link of accountability between the local electorate and the council. I know that a debate is going on within the Department at present, but I hope


that the sins of the profligate should be visited upon the profligate. There is a case within the limits for either a relaxation of the existing capping limit or giving the Minister discretion. That should depend on the efforts of the capped authorities to order their affairs more sensibly.
In addition, I am concerned about the use of the social and economic index as it affects councils like mine, which have a significant amount of deprivation in towns with populations of less than 100,000, but which otherwise cover rural areas. The index also affects towns such as mine, which have a small ethnic minority population. The use of the social and economic index means that those towns are deprived of £1.04 million out of a £10 million budget. The Government should be looking at how those indices work.
My second concern relates to area cost adjustments. I do not regard it as acceptable that Hereford and Worcester county council should be given £104 less on primary and £139 less on secondary education than a county such as Oxfordshire. I defy anybody to believe that the costs of living in Oxfordshire are significantly greater than those of Hereford and Worcester. Those figures alone show that ACAs are in urgent need of review, and I hope that that is done as quickly as possible.
My third concern is the way in which councils use their own assets. Not enough councils have used private finance—purely for ideological reasons which they will later regret—particularly in housing, to introduce more capital into their coffers which they would then be able to spend to their tenants' advantage. The net receipt for my district council—I hope it will read the debate in Hansard—if it transferred its housing stock to housing associations would be no less than £51.2 million. At a stroke, the council would eliminate its debt, and would have about £12.8 million to spend on capital improvements for the benefit of the people of the area. That also takes into account what the council regards as the fixed part of its expenditure—some £4 million out of £10.5 million. A significant proportion of that is payments on debt charges for capital projects on which it has—possibly unwisely—embarked in the past. The Minister will see that there is significant potential for councils such as mine if they are prepared—with the acquiesence of their council tax payers—to effect large-scale transfers of their housing budgets.
My final point concerns the teachers' pay review body. Obviously it is important that teachers are properly rewarded to attract good-quality people into the profession. We all agree with that. But equally, I happen to believe that pay determination is best done locally and according to local labour markets. From talking to teachers, I know that if the implication of them not taking an extra 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. in their wage packets was that they would be able to keep on staff who would otherwise be made voluntarily or compulsorily redundant, they would—on the basis of what was needed locally—be prepared to forgo that increase.
The fact is that, since 1990, teachers' pay has increased by 36 per cent. against a national average of 23 per cent. This year the teachers' pay review body may give an increase that is entirely unrealistic. I suggest that that be used merely as a guideline, so that teachers' pay is locally determined—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: As I have only 10 minutes, I do not intend to accept interventions. The Secretary of State, having gone on for 70 minutes in a most blatant abuse of the House, effectively prevented other Members from making points. We clashed last year, during debates on what I called the "blatant fiddle" of the revenue support grant. I have seen nothing in this consultation, or in the final proposals, that causes me to modify my view. Past devices used to rig the grant have been maintained and, in some respects, added to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) detailed many of those issues and exposed the fact that, under this settlement, council lax payers throughout the country, irrespective of the political complexion of their local authorities, will pay more for less.
I wish to discuss revenue support grant as it affects my authority, Coventry, and Westminster city council. Coventry councillors are angry and frustrated, having raised this year, as they have repeatedly raised before, legitimate issues of anomalies within the settlement only to find that those have not been dealt with. Moreover, the final formula contains new anomalies that have not been the subject of consultation with local authority associations.
Coventry has asked for changes to the use of "homelessness" as an indicator, because it costs the city nearly £2 million per annum and is not a reliable indicator of need. It has asked for the type of tenure not to be used as a proxy for deprivation, as it punishes areas with higher-than-average home ownership. It continues to be appalled by the massive over-allowance being delivered to some authorities via the area cost adjustment. As usual, Coventry was listened to politely, but it discovered that, in the final settlement, changes were made without consulting the local authority sub-group. Those changes benefit some inner-London authorities and punish Coventry and other metropolitan boroughs. That has happened despite the fact that the Minister agreed with the findings of last year's Environment Select Committee report that transparency in decision making should be improved. One must conclude that that commitment paid no more than lip service to the report.
Over the next three years, cuts of £21 million will have to be made in Coventry, while this year tax levels will rise by 10.5 per cent.—3.2 per cent. as a result of the Budget in the autumn, and 7.3 per cent. as a result of Coventry losing grant to other authorities. We are left with the feeling that our lobbying on revenue support grant has been a failure, so we have looked at how other authorities lobby and, in that regard, at the workings of Westminster city council.
Westminster city council has lobbied and gained significant increases in its grant share over the years. It is well satisfied with this year's settlement, having received a 9.7 per cent. increase in standard spending assessment and the grants that flow from that. As a result of its success, and Coventry's lack of success, in lobbying for higher grant, massive anomalies have arisen. Spending per head of population in Westminster is 30 per cent. higher than in Coventry, but a 90 per cent. difference in grants turns that completely around at taxpayer level. The SSA for Westminster was 60 per cent. higher per head than for Coventry, which translates into grant pound for pound.
In education, the SSA per pupil in Westminster is 52 per cent. higher than in Coventry. Much of that difference is due to area cost adjustments, which assume that it will cost 32 per cent. more to employ a teacher in inner London than it will in Coventry. That is absurd, as the London weighting premium on teachers' pay is less than 10 per cent.
I do not have time to discuss the massive anomalies that have arisen in social services. In SSA for the elderly, Westminster receives 2.49 times that of Coventry. That, too, is absurd. The proportion of elderly people on income support in Coventry is higher than in Westminster, but Westminster gains because elderly people on income support are not taken into account when calculating the SSA, while elderly people in rented accommodation are. That has little statistical justification and leads to the absurd anomaly whereby an elderly Member of Parliament living in rented accommodation in Westminster counts as having special needs, but a single pensioner living alone on income support in a small owner-occupied terrace house in Coventry is not classed as such.
Westminster's SSA for highway maintenance is 1.52 per cent. higher than Coventry's, which is ridiculous given the borough's special ability to generate car parking income. Coventry's highways budget of £9.1 million is offset by car parking income of £1.6 million. This year, Westminster is expected to collect a staggering £34 million for on-street parking and is struggling to spend that sum. It is now repairing Westminster bridge outside this place to try to get rid of the money that is sloshing around in its account. Effectively, it is doing so at the expense of taxpayers in Coventry, St. Helens and elsewhere. A Touche Ross report on Westminster city council shows that it has massive balances in its account which it simply does not know how to spend.
Westminster's SSA for "other district services" is 3.94 times that of Coventry and the highest per head of any council in England. That arises because Westminster's SSA population is almost doubled by commuters, overnight visitors and day visitors. Its SSA for tourists is about 60 per cent. of Coventry's SSA for the entire resident population. Most absurd is the fact that commuters and tourists in Westminster are assumed to have exactly the same social characteristics as the resident population. For example, 12 per cent. of tourists and commuters coming into Westminster are assumed to live in overcrowded accommodation; 24 per cent. are assumed to be from an ethnic minority; and 36 per cent. are assumed to live in purpose-built—mainly council—flats. The idea that people who have a job in Westminster and can afford to stay in a hotel, or who visit Westminster on a day trip, should be classed as deprived is utterly ridiculous.
How does Westminster council achieve those marvellous levels of grant support? Has it used the same lobbying methods as Coventry and other councils? No, it does not have to do that, and it never did. A note to Lady Porter on Westminster city council's lobbying methods and results has come into my possession through the digging activities of the district auditor. It details how individual members of the Government should be

approached and targeted, and how blatant political considerations are used to get more money. With regard to the Secretary of State, the note says:
John Gummer is the most alert of ministers to political nuances He will be particularly conscious that with safety nets a number of high spending Labour London boroughs will appear to get 'off the hook' with Community charges lower than Westminster.
The note then details the work done on behalf of the borough in bringing pressure to bear to get its grant increased at the expense of other local authorities.
That is how it is done. One does not lobby the Department of the Environment using solid analysis of the grant system; one lobbies the Tory party, stressing its electoral interests. That is the real reasoning behind many of the changes that have undermined the credibility of the grant system.
I am firmly of the opinion that we are dealing not just with a renegade local authority at Westminster, which has been buying electoral advantage by such mechanisms as "homes for votes" and free repairs for leaseholders at the expense of council tenants, but with a Government who are up to their eyeballs in this issue. We need an urgent decision on an extraordinary audit into Westminster city council. We need an end to the abuse of grant distribution which is punishing good, well-run authorities like Coventry. We need to restore credibility to the grant system because the people of Coventry and elsewhere are tired of paying other people's taxes, as they have constantly been forced to do through this disreputable system of grant distribution.

Mr. Michael Trend: We have heard much about certain cases today. I shall return to the essential elements of the debate as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning.
Like most hon. Members, I receive a substantial postbag every day crammed with letters demanding extra spending on all the items that we are discussing today. As all hon. Members should, I point out to my correspondents that the Government have no money of their own but only the ability to tax people. However, none of my correspondents is enthusiastic about paying higher taxes to provide greater resources to meet their massive demands. That is the background against which the Secretary of State's settlement must be viewed.
In the present circumstances, I believe that the settlement is reasonable. The economy is growing steadily in a sustainable way—although I know that many people are still waiting to feel the effects of the recovery. We have had a tough spending round. Many Conservative Members argued that public spending should he held down and we are not ashamed of that view now.
Local government has an almost insatiable appetite for funds which must be held in check, especially when the national economy demands it. The Government are concerned about the size of the public spending borrowing requirement. It is not the only national economic factor of central importance, but local government cannot be immune from the PSBR. The country as a whole must reduce its borrowing.
With underlying inflation at its lowest level in 27 years, I believe that this year's local authority finance settlement is fair. The Government believe that local authority revenue spending should increase by 2.2 per cent. in 1995–96, which is very close to the rate of inflation.
Against that background, it is up to local authorities to stay within the public sector pay guidelines suggested by the Government. They must make sensible budgeting decisions and look for further efficiency savings. Such good advice is not confined to local authorities; we must all expect to make savings. Government Departments are being asked to do it and private business understands the necessity of cutting costs while producing high-quality goods and services.
When considering local government finance, the really important question is: what do council taxpayers want? The answer is simple—they want good, effective services at the most reasonable cost possible. We have heard today from the Audit Commission's report, "Paying the Piper", which clearly highlights areas where local authorities can make further efficiency savings. The Audit Commission saw scope for councils to target their resources more efficiently and to increase staff productivity. It also pointed to the benefits of local pay management. That should be a model for all boroughs.
For some 15 years, I was an inhabitant and ratepayer of the London borough of Hackney. When it comes to Hackney, I know what I am talking about. I was part of a minority in Hackney: I was one of the few people who paid domestic rates. Since being elected as a Member of Parliament for the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead I have, very sensibly, taken up residence there.
However, the brief journey from east London to east Berkshire has been more than just a change of address; it has been an education in local government at its worst and at its best. It is highly relevant to the local government finance report because in both cases it is our money that is being spent.
When I saw Mr. McKinstry's article in The Spectator, it was like returning to Hackney. He said:
The hallmarks for which Labour local authorities have become renowned"—
are—
accusations of racism, whining social workers, massive procedural delays, and rumours of corruption … Waste, bureaucracy and political correctness characterise too much of their work".
Those are the words of a former Labour party supporter. Fortunately, that is not the case in Windsor and Maidenhead, where there is a long history of responsible management.
The royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead is a tightly run ship. Therefore, it is perhaps no surprise that it has done reasonably well in this year's settlement. In the settlement just announced, the royal borough has been given a 2.83 per cent. increase on 1994–95 funding levels. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for what will be seen as a reasonable outcome.
The royal borough makes its case to the Department of the Environment with reasoned argument. Last year, the royal borough made a case to the Secretary of State about three main issues and I joined the council in pressing its case: first, it raised the matter of the all ages social index; secondly, we thought that the figures which were used in the standard spending assessment calculations understated the population; and, thirdly, we argued that it was unfair that there was no allowance for day tourism.
I am glad to say that some relief was given in respect of each of those three factors. First, the social index factor was split in two, which helped to a small degree;

secondly, a more realistic population figure, based on the 1991 census, was used; and, thirdly, a new day tourist factor was included.
In this year's settlement, a further significant increase of slightly more than 1 per cent. has been applied in the population figure which is used to calculate SSA. That is good news for Windsor and Maidenhead. However, other changes made in the previous year continue to affect the royal borough.
The third factor recognises the impact that day tourism has upon towns which attract many day visitors and it applies to the town of Windsor in my constituency. In leading for the Opposition this afternoon, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) lumped Windsor with some very distinguished towns as though it were one of the very wealthy shire county towns. It is not.
If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to intervene, I would have informed him that, not so long ago, Windsor had a Labour mayor. I am very distressed that the Labour party is no longer so well organised in Windsor, because I am keen to encourage a higher Labour vote there.
Windsor is not one of the super wealthy towns of the Thames valley, and Engels would have been familiar with many of its housing terraces. Its housing stock is not dissimilar to the old housing stock in Hackney. Many people who lived in Windsor when the houses were built in the last century worked at the castle and there is surprisingly little housing of a substantial size.
Windsor is a complex town. It is dominated by its magnificent castle, which was begun by William the Conqueror and is now known throughout the world. The castle gives Windsor a wealthy and cosmopolitan image, but that is not the reality.
Hon. Members may recall the disastrous fire which occurred in the castle a few years ago. I am pleased to report that considerable progress has been made in restoring the basic fabric of the affected part of the building and plans for the interior rebuilding and redesign were published last week. I am also pleased to say that the number of visitors to the town and to the castle has held up well. Some people feared that the fire would lead to such adverse publicity that tourists would stay away. Fortunately, that has not happened. That is a good thing, because many people in and around Windsor earn their living, one way or another, from the castle.
Away from the castle, down our main shopping street—

Mr. Olner: How much council tax is paid by the occupants of Windsor castle?

Mr. Trend: I make it a point of principle never to discuss the affairs of the people who live in the castle.
A little way down our main shopping street, Peascod street, there is a thriving town in its own right which, like all towns in the Thames valley, has had to fight hard to retain the loyalty of local shoppers. That is the Windsor which most of my constituents know and it does not sit easily beside the tourist town up the hill.
My constituents know that, as council tax payers, they bear many of the costs associated with the daily influx of tourists. It is sometimes difficult to move along the pavements of the high street outside the castle in the high tourist season because of the procession of visitors. A mother with a pram may not he able to push her children down one of the main roads in the town because of the


mass of tourists, some of whose associated costs she also meets. I was therefore very glad when the Government recognised in last year's settlement the problems that day tourism can cause.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: In the hothouse atmosphere earlier this afternoon, it was difficult to follow what the Secretary of State was saying. Let me try to paraphrase it. This has been a tough and tight financial settlement. Public expenditure has to be kept control of, and local authorities must share the pain—and by the way, they have to be more efficient. That was the gist of what he said.
A number of hon. Members have today attacked local authorities in a fairly vicious way. I would therefore like to record the fact that, in recent years, local authorities have worked hard to make efficiency savings. They have implemented information technology; they have slimmed down management. Resources have moved from county halls to schools. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) talked about land sales. Nottinghamshire county council aims to sell £8 million-worth of land each year to support its budget.
Local councils, I believe, are becoming ever more efficient. That is also the view of the Audit Commission. Its reports of seven years ago said that savings of £541 million could be made. Today they are being made by local authorities. They are taking stock, and they are making the necessary changes. Ultimately, efficiency savings run out; one day, the pips will really squeak. Such savings are not endless.
We should also take a look at central Government, whose overall public spending has risen by 3.3 per cent. Next year, the Department for Education will have an increase of 4.1 per cent.; MAFF will have an increase of 13.5 per cent. So the pain is not being shared evenly.
What can be done to remedy the problem? We could look first at the hideous local government review. Fifty million pounds has been top-sliced off this settlement for that review. We do not know what its final costs will be. We are told that the transitional costs in Cleveland may be between £13 million and £18 million—that is what the Local Government Commission estimates. The bids coming in from councils in the area amount to about £30 million.
What will happen in the next financial year, 1996–97? How much will be top-sliced then: £150 million, or £200 million? No one knows, because the Department of the Environment has not taken the time to study what the costs of the review may turn out to be. It is a leap in the dark, and I predict that, by the end of the process, very few savings will emerge.
Secondly, we might look at capping. When it was introduced 10 years ago, it was designed to get the dirty dozen—the handful of difficult councils—but now it is universal; 85 per cent. of councils' grant now comes from central Government. The element of local discretion no longer exists.
I am astonished to find that Nottinghamshire county council has been given a capping increase of 0.5 per cent. The new police authorities are getting a capping increase of 4.9 per cent.; the inner London boroughs one of 3.2

per cent. If it is good enough for people in Brixton, Lambeth and Westminster, the increase should be good enough for my people in Blidworth, Lowdham and Walesby. Why cannot the Government stand by one set of caps for the whole country?
As I said, the London boroughs are being given an increase of 3.2 per cent. Applied generally, that would release £600 million for local authorities, and some of the real problems that local councils face would disappear forthwith. There would be no cuts in social services and few in education.
We also need to focus on the area cost adjustment system, which other hon. Members have already highlighted. When I met the Minister of State earlier this year, I was pleased to hear him say that research into this matter would be carried out. I should like him to consult widely in the course of that research. I am not sure whether looking at travel-to-work areas will help. The research must focus on real costs, not notional costs. If councils do not pay more, they should not receive extra grant. The system should be fair and transparent.
Bills in Nottinghamshire are set to rise by £30, or 6 per cent. People there will pay more for less after I April. There will be real cuts in education. The county council intends to spend £373 million next year, against an SSA of £347 million—a spending above SSA of £26 million, or 7.5 per cent. But there are going to be cuts. As many as 300 teachers will lose their jobs.
Abbey Gates primary school in Nottinghamshire, an excellent school, is a case in point. The chairman of the governors wrote to me to say:
We find ourselves unable to set a budget which is both legal and responsible, financially and educationally sound".
He is going to lose three teachers. The children will suffer, and class sizes will increase. That is what Ministers call a tight and tough settlement. In fact, it is a double whammy: people pay more for less.
This is an unjust settlement, and we must throw it out.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) said that he did not agree with the settlement, but he and other Labour Members ought to look at the waste over which some Labour-controlled councils have presided for 10 years or so—debt, rent arrears, non-collection of council tax and so on. It is staggering to think that those authorities built up empires of extra staff and, at every turn, blamed the Government.
If Norfolk had behaved like them—overspending year in, year out—it would not, ironically, be suffering from some of its current difficulties, because it would have a higher spending base. There is something inherently unfair in a system that allows that to happen.
One has to try to put this year's settlement into the wider context of the economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) did exactly that. This settlement is very different from those of previous years, because of the Chancellor's decisions at the time of the public expenditure survey round. If he had not been tough on public expenditure, the successful and satisfactory course of the economy recently would not have been maintained.
My right hon. and learned Friend would not have been able to sustain the confidence that has allowed businesses, especially in my part of the world, to say that they are more optimistic now than they have been for many years. That is because world markets have confidence in our Chancellor's economic management and fiscal and monetary policy.
I do not see how the Chancellor could possibly have ignored the sector that takes up one quarter of total public expenditure. Those who say that cuts in Government Departments must be made, and that some fat remains on various bones, cannot simultaneously claim that local government must be immune. So this is a tough settlement, and a difficult settlement for Norfolk, which will find life extremely hard over the next few months while implementing the cuts that will have to be made in some areas.
I did not agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) said a moment ago, but it does seem strange that, while the overall settlement for local authorities has risen by 2.2 per cent., Norfolk's increase amounts to 0.5 per cent. I cannot see how that stacks up.
Many people in Norfolk are worried about the area cost adjustment, which the hon. Member for Sherwood discussed. Area cost adjustment bears down unfairly on shire counties such as Norfolk. Norfolk is an extremely pleasant place in which to teach in a school or to work, but, as a result, many of the staff working for the local education authority in particular are at the higher end of the age spectrum, and hence more expensive. As a result, we have lost about £10 million owing to the pernicious way in which the area cost adjustment works.
Only a few days ago, the Minister met a delegation from Norfolk. I know that he gave its members a fair hearing, listened to everything they said and considered their points about the area cost adjustment. I hope that he will be able to revisit the subject. I do not want to leave him in any doubt about how difficult things are going to be for Norfolk.
At the same time, I believe that Norfolk county council will he able to get through the year. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have received many letters from constituents, schools, parish councils and voluntary organisations. Many different bodies are extremely concerned that the education committee will have to save £1.6 million.
The cost of the teachers' pay settlement will be well in excess of 0.5 per cent. The education committee will have to bridge the gap. It will do so to some extent by cutting planned spending on non-school budgets by £3.9 million and transferring £2 million directly to schools to help them to meet the cost of rising pupil numbers.
The education committee will also reduce the planned nursery programme. There will not be a cut, but there will be a reduction in the committee's plans. There will have to be savings in the expenditure on school meals through contracting out and by increasing the charge by about 10 per cent., from £1.05 to £1.15.
These savings are sustainable and I can live with them. At the same time, however, the county council will have to rationalise bus routes, which will save about £100,000. That could have been done before, and it can be done now. There are proposed social services savings of £2.1 million. Quite a large part of those savings will have to come through higher charges, which will raise about £1.2

million. My hon. Friend the Minister will be interested to know that nearly £500,000 will be saved by leasing vehicles.
There will be some growth within the social services budget. An increase of 2.5 per cent. in the spending on home care will amount to £120,000. An extra £25,000 will be made available for the cost of foster-care places. There will be other improvements in the social services plans for the county.
The proposed savings in respect of planning and transportation amount to about £2.4 million. A considerable sum will be saved in departmental running costs—about £70,000. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will welcome that. About £240,000 will be saved in the transfer of the waste regulation function.
I have given examples of what Norfolk county council is doing. Its officers are working extremely hard to find savings. They have examined rationalisation and greater efficiency and produced sensible ideas. I am aware, however, that there will be difficulties for schools, social services and other organisations that are backed, to some extent, by the county council.
In the context of a tough public expenditure round, I think that Norfolk Members will grit their teeth and live with what is proposed, because they support the Government's wider economic policy. On the other hand, they look to the Minister and the Secretary of State to understand that Norfolk is making sacrifices because of economic conditions in the hope that its case will be listened to in future.
We hope also that next year Ministers will realise that there will be nothing further to cut, because everything has already been cut to the bone. I leave the Minister with that thought. I hope that he will take on board everything that I and others have said.

Mr. Tony Banks: I understand that I have seven minutes in which to speak.
It is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), living in his Norfolk castle, surrounded by his servants and champagne and shooting small furry creatures, to lecture local authorities, especially in areas such as the one that I represent, about the need to secure further savings. He continues to lecture them on their inability to deliver services. The hon. Gentleman should experience the problems that we have in the east end of London. I can only say, having listened to his litany, that we dream of having problems like that in the east end.
One of the features of the debate throughout has been the way in which Tories have been running scared of Liberals in the west country. It has been quite a lesson. To paraphrase some great words of Winston Churchill, never before have so many underpants been filled so often by so many.
It seems that no one really understands local authority finances these days. The formulae are complicated, arcane and, at times, semi-lunatic. Unfortunately, the debate will be given little coverage on the television and in the media generally. That is because journalists, especially, do not regard debates on revenue support grant as sexy. They arc: wrong, of course, because of the significance of the debate for every man, woman and child. From nursery schools


to residential homes for the elderly, everything is affected by the terms of the settlement that we are discussing. All that provision will be seriously affected.
There was a time when central Government exercised little touch and only light control on local government affairs. It is now a hands-on approach. Unfortunately, the hands are effectively on the throat of local government. There is far too much interference, even now, by central Government in local government affairs. I accept that ministerial attitudes have improved since the rabid days of some years back, but there is still too much of a tendency for Conservative Members to perceive local authorities as enemies of the state and of democracy.
Local democracy and accountability have been almost fatally undermined by the persistent actions of Conservative Governments. We must remove the shackles from local authorities and allow democratically elected councillors to get on with the job for which they were elected by local people, which is to run local services for local people. They should be accountable to local people through the ballot box.
We all have our own whinges, because this is a whingeing debate. I shall have my whinge on behalf of Newham, but I acknowledge—I always want to seem to be fair to Ministers—that Newham has received considerable additional funding over the past couple of years from the Government and the European Union. City challenge at Stratford has objective 2 status, we have assisted area status, and we have received considerable sums from the single regeneration budget. I am grateful, as are all my hon. Friends from Newham, who are in their places.
Newham deserves what it has received because it is an area of acute deprivation. It is top of the poverty league, which is one league from which I would like to see Newham relegated at the first possible opportunity. Despite the Government acknowledging that Newham has problems, they have said in the House that it stands to lose an additional £20 million over the next three years as a result of standard spending assessment and rate support grant settlement.
A way out from Newham's point of view would be to include it as an inner London borough for financial purposes. Newham, Tower Hamlets and Hackney comprise the most deprived sub-region in the country. It is ridiculous that two of the boroughs are classified as inner London while Newham is outer London. That situation is based on historic administrative reasons, not on a financial regime.
As a group, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), with council officers and others, have asked Ministers for inner London status for Newham. I hope that our case will be considered favourably. I know that there will be problems with some Labour inner London boroughs, and we shall have to face them ourselves. We shall do so by arguing our case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South has said, on the basis of merit. We are more than prepared to argue with our colleagues.
We are definitely disadvantaged in Newham by the needs indices in the SSA formula. Ministers should take that on board. Newham is ninth in the social index and in

10th position in the new economic index. When it comes to the urban conditions index, Newham is in first place. That index should be included in the SSA formula. Specific consideration should be given to homelessness in Newham. It is an incredibly pressing problem.
All hon. Members have said that we are faced with a tight settlement. More than that, it is a strangulation of a settlement. We are being pushed to the limits in Newham. The Government must recognise our case. The Minister should understand that the three Newham Members hunt in a pack. We shall be hunting at ministerial doors in the years to come.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: The financial settlement is indeed a tough one, but it is also well considered. I pay a small tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, whom I know well and have met on several occasions to talk about the settlement in Hounslow. He listens. He absorbs. He is a master of his brief, and he acts on the advice and information that he has.
I listened to the points made by Opposition Members. One would think that the Conservatives—particularly the Minister—are a group determined to inflict pain and suffering on a vast area of the countryside. Let us for a few minutes examine what the Labour party has been doing. We all know that the Labour party has not been in power—national Government—for the past 15 years. I think that I am correct in saying that the leader of the Labour party stated, in The Spectator, on 1 October 1994:
I don't think the character of any party becomes clear until you're in power.
It has not been in power for the past 15 years, and the character of the Labour party in national Government may not be clear, but what is clear is that the Labour party has been in power. It has had control of vast areas of the country through the local government system. Let us look at that record to see what the character of the Labour party in power has been.
Even the Tribune on 15 May 1992, was forced to concede that Labour local government is
lacklustre and incompetent…ineffectual or rotten Labour councils…have been a feature of political life for as long as anyone can remember.
Let us look at the council tax bills, band for hand—bands C and D. The average charge for band C in a Conservative-controlled local authority is £429, but in a Labour-controlled local authority it is £560. For band D in a Conservative-controlled local authority it is £482, but in a Labour-controlled local authority it is £635. Why is it more expensive to live in Labour-controlled authorities? At this point, I ask my hon. Friend about something that has concerned me for some time. We cap local authorities—Labour and Conservative. By so doing, we do not expose the profligacy of Labour-controlled authorities to the tax payer. If we do not cap them, some will go completely over the top and will never be elected back into power. That is something that my more learned hon. Friends must think about.
Let us look at more figures. We know that some Labour-controlled local authorities are indeed in deprived areas, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, but does that mean that they cannot collect their taxes? If one look at the rate of tax collection in Labour-controlled local authorities, one will see that


Lambeth has collected only 48 per of its taxes, Hackney, 67 per cent., Islington, 67 per cent., Southwark, 73 per cent., and Newham, 73 per cent.
Let us look at rent arrears. Is it so difficult to collect council tax and council house rents? Why has Hackney collected only 31 per cent., Greenwich, 25 per cent., Newham, 24 per cent.—

Mr. Dobson: Give us the Ealing figures.

Mr. Deva: The hon. Gentleman is right. One Conservative-controlled authority—Ealing—has collected only 23 per cent., and I am sure that there are people who will do something about that.
Let us look at debt. Why do Labour-controlled local authorities have the highest debt in the country? Manchester has a debt of £1,326 million. Its total debt per head is £3,000. In Birmingham, it is £1,233; in Islington, £946 and so on. Why is it that those uncollected taxes and rents are in Labour-controlled local authorities?
Let us return to that great quote from the Leader of the Opposition—that the character of any party does not become clear until one is in power, because it is very clear indeed. Those Labour authorities have been in power for generations, for far too long, and some day their ratepayers will wake up and say, "This is no good. We have to do something about it."
In Hounslow, we have a Labour-controlled local authority that is more efficient than the local authorities that I have discussed. Its revenue support grant is about 0.5 per cent. more than last year. I know that this is a time to whinge, but I am not going to whinge. I merely put on record, as my hon. Friend knows, that we have to build two new schools this year, because our population is increasing faster than predicted, and we have a problem with refugees because of the airport. I know that my hon. Friend has taken that on board.

Mr. Bill Olner: I am grateful to my hon. Friends who limited their contributions so that I might have an opportunity to put briefly Warwickshire's case. I notice that the Minister has dashed away to his advisers—to listen all about Warwickshire, I assume.

Mr. Dobson: He is on the run.

Mr. Olner: Already.
Conservative Members and Ministers have been talking in two ways. They know very well that the cuts in the rate support grant settlement are real cuts to their communities. It really is no good the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) talking about the figures in the briefing for councillors, issued by Conservative central office. He really should show it to some of the Conservative councillors in many of the shire counties throughout the country. They are councillors, and political beings, as are the Liberal Democrats and the socialists, but they are representatives of their communities. Those councillors know full well that the rate support grant settlement will cut into services in their communities, which, as elected members, they hold just as dearly to their hearts as does each one of us. The hon. Gentleman does Conservative Members no good at all—

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Is it in order for a Member of the Labour party to use a brief specifically prepared for Conservative Members of Parliament?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for the Chair, as I think that the hon. Gentleman knows. He should not waste the House's time, which is limited.

Mr. Olner: I can produce another briefing, in case Conservative Members really expect to get any satisfaction from the Minister's reply. Many of them have referred to the 0.5 per cent. cap, which cannot possibly cater for the needs of communities; they have also referred to the extremely flawed SSAs. I advise those hon. Members—who have urged their Minister to act with haste—to listen to what their local authorities have said.
In 1989, Warwickshire county council embarked on an attempt to persuade the Minister and his civil servants that the county's SSAs were flawed and unrealistic, and did not take account of local needs. The same applied to the cap. The council persevered, making representations in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 and trying to persuade the Government to reconsider their SSAs and rate support grant settlement for Warwickshire. I have joined the council in its representations. We were listened to very politely, but at the end of the day nothing happened, although it was a Conservative-controlled authority that originally complained to the Government.
Some hon. Members have referred to councils setting expenditure limits above the cap, and then throwing themselves on the Secretary of State's mercy in an attempt to have the cap increased. I do not think that Warwickshire will dare to do that this year, unless the Secretary of State gives a sign that he is prepared to increase the cap before it sets its budget. If the Secretary of State does not take into account the amount by which the budget exceeds the cap, rebuilding that budget will cost another half a million pounds of council tax payers' money. Local authorities are being squeezed in a pincer movement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) mentioned a double whammy, but when councils can make no sense of the SSAs, cannot secure additional funds from the revenue support grant or a lifting of the cap and cannot even ask their council tax payers to contribute an extra 25p a week, it is really a triple whammy. Warwickshire's SSA is one of the lowest in the country, and should be reassessed. The 1995 cap will reduce school budgets in cash terms, and seriously damage the education of children in my constituency.
Last Friday, I went to a meeting in Leamington. Conservative Members are wrong if they think that they can hide the facts from their communities. More than 800 people attended the meeting—parents, head teachers, school governors and chairmen of governing boards, of all political persuasions. Those people know exactly where the blame lies, and that what has been done will lead to the demise of Warwickshire's education service.
A wonderful machine is now wheeled out on Saturday evenings. Numbers are drawn out of it. I think that it is called the national lottery. The SSAs are very much like that machine; the only difference is that it costs local authorities very much more than a pound to have a go.
It seems that, even now, the Government do not know how they constructed the SSA machine. For the same reason they do not know how to fix it, and the mess in which they find themselves will be to the detriment of everyone in the country.

Mr. Geoffrey 'Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner). I am sorry that his party is so bereft of ideas and policies that he has been forced to use a Conservative party brief prepared privately for Conservative Members.
This is a tight settlement, which amounts to about 25 per cent. of the Government's total expenditure of some £43.5 billion, but it is 2.2 per cent. higher than last year's. My county, Gloucestershire, is to receive an increase of 2.4 per cent. overall. For some services, it will get an increase of 4.3 per cent. compared with the county average of 3.3 per cent. Therefore, it has not fared as badly as many other shire counties.
The Liberal and Labour parties form the ruling group in that shire county. On average, in every community charge band Labour charges £100 more than the Conservatives while the Liberals charge £50 more. Representatives from Gloucestershire council came to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration with a proposal to cut £7 million from the education budget—a cut of 4 per cent. That is a disgrace and it is unfair to the children in my county. Last year, Gloucestershire council threatened that there would be a loss of 150 teachers. In the event, six were made redundant and 111 were retired, but 165 full-time appointments were made.
Gloucestershire requires only two more grant-maintained schools to reach the magical 75 per cent. at which all grant-maintained schools will be funded by the Further Education Funding Council. I recommend any school in my constituency which is running into budget problems to seek to become grant maintained. It will then be funded nationally and the children in the school will not be disadvantaged.
Gloucestershire council spends £1,000 a day for computer consultants. It is advertising for a third PR man for its social services department to rectify the public relations disaster of funding a safari holiday in Africa for a child in a special needs school. The child was difficult and had committed crimes and, believe it or not, the council sent him to Africa for a holiday. That is the nature of the council which is controlled by the Liberal and Labour parties.
The council owns more than 5,000 acres of agricultural land and I have had serious discussions with it on how it could sell some of that land to reduce its debt. When the council was under Conservative control in 1986, its debt was £26.5 million. Today, under the Labour and Liberal parties, it has a staggering debt of £120 million. That is an increase of well over 1,000 per cent. since the Conservatives lost control in 1986, and it has occurred simply because the council cannot control its expenditure. Its budget is almost £300 million and it should be able to

make efficiency savings. I know of no other business or local authority with a budget of that size which could not make some efficiency savings.
County hall in Gloucester has office after office. What do the occupants of those offices do? I have no idea, but I am sure that it is possible for the council to make savings. I shall give an example. There is a footpath through my land. Gloucestershire county council has no less than four full-time footpath officers. The footpath on my land has been walked perfectly satisfactorily for 20 years and those officers are perfectly happy to use my field gate. They now want to move the footpath just 10 yards so that they can walk through the middle of my orchard.
The council wrote to me stating that it would like a gate cut in my fence and said that it was prepared to do it for £60. I wrote back and said that I would be delighted to have people walking through the middle of my orchard. I wrote, "Please do it for £60, that is very good value for money." After a fortnight I got another letter. Goodness knows what it costs to send them all, but in that one the council said that it had had another look and that the job was not quite as simple as was first thought. The letter said that a special gate would be required and recommended that it would be cheaper for me to do the job myself. I wrote back saying that I would be perfectly happy to do it and that I would make the necessary arrangements.
That is a typical example of the wasteful expenditure of Gloucestershire county council, yet it sends a delegation to see my right hon. Friend. It whinges, complains and produces a magical budget whereby it wants to spend another £22 million, no less. It then complains to my right hon. Friend that it has a cut on what it would otherwise have liked to have spent.

Mr. Paul Marland: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: No, I cannot. I have less than a minute to finish my speech.
To all my constituents in Gloucestershire, I say that they have £300 million to spend. They should consider the best way of buying services, whether from the private sector or whoever, to ensure that all my constituents and, especially, the children in my constituency can benefit to the greatest extent.
Council officers or anyone else should not encourage the public to write and complain to me that the people of Gloucestershire are getting a bad deal from the Government. They are getting no worse a deal than many surrounding shire counties—in fact they are getting a better deal. The council should look wherever it can to provide a better service. I am sure that it will be able to do the job better than it is at the moment.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The House was entertained by the comments of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) about his orchard, but I am not sure whether it was the most central speech today. It is a great shame that the House spends less than one day debating what is the most important thing that affects local government. Even the Secretary of State for the Environment made the point that local government is responsible for something like a


quarter of the funding that central Government provide. On that basis, I hope that we will have a much more lengthy debate in the future so that, if for no other reason, hon. Members on both sides of the House can have a little more time to make their points.
Confusion seems to exist between the two Government spokesmen. Just after the local authority statement was made in December, the Secretary of State wrote to hon. Members and said:
Local authorities, like central Government, must play its part in restraining the growth of public spending ‖ we are not asking authorities to do more than Government is itself having to do to control its costs.
As has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that is simply not true. The record can be put clearly and simply. A number of hon. Members have made that point.
If we consider the settlement for local government, it is the Minister who is right. I do not think that he was speaking in a personal capacity when he said that he had been stuffed by the Treasury. He was expressing that view on behalf of local government, about which, I would be the first to say, he knows something. His view is rather different from that of the Secretary of State. Everyone knows that the settlement is bad for local government, which will have to make cuts of about £1.5 billion and increase the council tax across the board by 6 per cent. on average to stay within the settlement.
Local government has been given a cash increase of only about 0.4 per cent. in real terms, yet the budgets of other Departments of central Government are increasing—that of the Department of Health by 3.8 per cent., that of the Department of Social Security by 3.7 per cent., and that of the Department for Education by 4.1 per cent. That is happening at a time when the Secretary of State says that the schools budget can go up only by 1.1 per cent. That shows that central Government treat themselves differently from the way in which they treat local government.
The most significant budget increase involves the Secretary of State's former Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Its budget has increased by some 13 per cent. now that he has gone, but he has been able to achieve a paltry increase for the local government family. That is an indictment of Ministers.
If the Minister and his right hon. Friend really do believe that the SSA methodology is one
upon which decisions are even handed, rational and based upon the most information available for all authorities
he is out of touch not only with my hon. Friends, but with his hon. Friends.
We had a number of interesting speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), and for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), as well as by the hon. Members for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss), for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson), for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend). They all complained about the methodology used for the SSAs. The Minister must accept that the methodology needs to he challenged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Mr. Dobson) gave examples of the social index scores. I can give the House another example. Liverpool

is one of the most deprived cities, not just in Britain but in the whole of western Europe, yet it is in 81st position with a score that suggests that it is less than averagely deprived. The City of London, that well-known centre of deprivation and urban squalor, is 19th in the list of deprived local authorities. If that is the index that the Minister is using, it really is time to look at this issue differently.
Local authorities up and down the land are being deprived because the index does not take proper account of the real statistics. For example, Surrey local education authority gains £8 million every year for the young people who live in the area, many of whom go to private schools outside Surrey. Surrey is a wealthy local authority and that £8 million is being provided at the expense of other authorities. The Minister must look again at the way in which the SSAs are calculated.
The jewel in the Government's crown, the authority around which the structure of local government finance is written, is the London borough of Westminster. We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Holborn arid St Pancras, for Coventry North-East and for St Helens, North about how Westminster is treated so much more favourably than the rest of local government as to be nothing short of a scandal. The Minister should explain to the House not why Westminster is an efficient authority--we know that it is not—but what he intends to do about that running sore which will discredit him, the Department of the Environment, and the Government unless they are prepared to act.
The real losers in this year's settlement are not Members of Parliament but those whom we serve and who use the services in our local authorities. Let us look at the settlement for education. Many hon. Members have mentioned that. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West said that it is ridiculous that local authorities have to set their budgets before the pay settlements are known. That is made even more ridiculous by the fact that this year the Government have given, even in their own terms, a cash increase of 1.1 per cent. in the education SSAs, while the practical reality is that teachers' pay increases are outside the hands of local government. The local authorities are expecting to face bills in excess of that 1.1 per cent. and will have to find that money at the expense of education.
We know that another 110,000 pupils arc coming into our schools this year. Although we know that the pupil rolls will increase still further, it is only Education Ministers who believe that that will not be at the expense of the education of our young people. The number of pupils per teacher and per class in our primary and secondary schools is about 25. In Japan it is 17 and in France it is as low as 13.6. If it is good enough for children in Japan and France to have classes of that size, why is not it good enough for children in this country?

Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way because time is short.
The House will he interested to learn of a letter that the Secretary of State for Education wrote to one of her Cabinet colleagues. She said:
If teachers' pay increases by 2-3 per cent., then there will be a loss of 7,000 to 10.000 teachers
in England. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. The decision whether to fund the teachers' pay round properly is in the hands of the Government. It is up to


them to decide whether local government should be properly reimbursed or whether they will take out that extra cost on every child in every school up and down the land. The children will face bigger classes and the educational consequences of that.
Let me deal with social services. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) talked about his county council. Gloucestershire county council's care programme is £1 million in the red in the current financial year and is providing emergency care only to people at risk. John Standing, the Conservative group's spokesman, said that
community care began as such a good idea but it is no good if we do not have the funding to carry out the ideas.
That is a Conservative county councillor talking about what the Government have done to local government and community care.
In its recently published report entitled "Taking Stock: Progress on Community Care", the Audit Commission makes it clear that the community care system is under intense pressure. It states that it is underfunded, yet we know that the Government have de facto placed a freeze on the social services SSA for the coming year. In practical terms, that means a cut in funding for social services which, in turn, means cuts in services for the elderly and vulnerable. Those are the values of this Government—they are certainly the values that they have been pursuing for some years.
The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth has broken free from the constraints that once chained him and is now able to tell the truth. The implication of what he said was that there is a degree of hypocrisy among those sitting on the Conservative Front Bench, and it is not for me to disagree with him on this occasion. His was probably one of the better speeches that we heard from Conservative Members this evening.
Across the length and breadth of the land, county councils with social services responsibilities are saying that funding for the care in the community initiative is inadequate and that they cannot cope on the basis of the Government's settlement. It is no good the Minister saying that it is a good settlement when we know that his view is somewhat different—he recognised that the Treasury had managed to work one over on him and his colleagues.
It is important to get away from the idea that the debate is merely a competition in which Government supporters try to find Labour-run authorities to criticise and Labour Members are told that their own local authorities are nothing but incompetent. I shall refer to a number of local authorities where there has been all-party agreement on their approaches to central Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) said that an all-party delegation from Newcastle went to see the Minister to tell him that it was unacceptable that Newcastle had to cut its council tax and its services when the local populace wanted the services maintained. The Minister should respond to that point as we are told that capping is in the interests of local people.
The Minister should consider the borough of Havering, which sent a delegation to meet, I think, the Minister of State. The delegation was made up of members of all political parties on the council. They pointed out to him

that it was invidious that the council had to make £17 million worth of cuts and, at the same time, increase the council tax by some 11 per cent. Perhaps the Minister can explain to Havering and the House why residents will have to pay more but get fewer services. Perhaps he can also explain why, despite the claim that the council was terribly inefficient while Labour was in charge, that Labour council was able to point out to him that it has cut about £30 million plus from the budget that it inherited from the previous Conservative authority. There has been no suggestion, even by the Conservatives, that it is a high-spending, loony left Labour council. It is a good, sound Labour council forced to cut services and increase the council tax because of the Government.
Let us consider Warwickshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) and at least one Conservative Member said that there was a threat of the loss of some 200 teachers' posts there. Again, it is no good the Conservatives saying that that is scaremongering; that is certainly not the view of people of stature in the community, and not that of politicians. Mr. Seamus Crowe, the head teacher of St. Francis primary school in Bedworth, told a county-wide meeting at Leamington on Friday last week:
Our argument is not with the County Council, it is with the Government".
Ordinary people involved in communities up and down the country are saying to the Minister, through us, that the Government have caused the problem and that it is for them to deal with it.
The Minister met an all-party delegation from Shropshire headed by a senior Conservative Member of Parliament and one of my colleagues. That delegation comprised councillors of all persuasions. They made the point to the Minister that Shropshire had been traditionally high spending on education under the Conservatives. That high spending had been maintained under Labour with the support of the Conservative group on the council.
Last night, the Conservative group on Shropshire council decided to support an attempt to go through the cap. I hope that the Minister will comment specifically on Shropshire, where his own colleagues in local government are saying that they think that the Government have got it wrong and that what the Government are doing is incompetent and ineffectual. I ask the Minister especially to note the comments of the leader and the deputy leader of the Conservative group. The leader said:
Government needs to recognise the disaster it is heading for at the general election if it continues like this.
The deputy leader said:
The Government in London is remote from the impact of their decisions. I have to tell them they have got it wrong and we have got it right.
Conservative local government is saying that the Conservative Government have got it wrong and that Conservatives in local government know better.

Mr. Knapman: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spent almost an hour telling us that Conservative councils—Westminster and others—had been favoured at the expense of others. Now the hon.


Gentleman is saying that Conservative councils are, as he would have it, in trouble in the same way. Both cannot be right, can they?

Mr. Lloyd: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. If he knew the political geography of this country, he would know that Shropshire is not a Conservative council, nor, indeed is Warwickshire any more. It is interesting that the last time that Warwickshire council was capped was when the Conservatives ran the council, which may also say something about the way in which Conservatives in local government increasingly see central Government.
I shall quote briefly from a report about Shropshire in this morning's paper in which Alan Cooper, head teacher of The Marches school in Oswestry—a school considered to be among the best, not only in the county, but in the country—said:
It was not the fault of the county council, … but government spending curbs which limited central grant to Shropshire".
Up and down the land, the Government are being rumbled. People know that when class sizes increase it is because of the Government. People know that cuts in the social services budget, so that the vulnerable and the elderly cannot get the social services that they need, mean that the Government are at fault. People know very well that when they send delegations from their communities to meet the Minister, the answer may be sympathetic, but it is still no.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made a rather interesting point that each Conservative council which was considered to have whinged too much, and went to see the Minister, came away with a budget cut. That is an interesting statistic which perhaps explains the rather more credible view of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East, who told the House that the more secretive diplomacy of Westminster council was the way to get the Government to provide more funding.
We see the results all around us. We know that if the same favourable treatment which Westminster council received were offered to councils everywhere, few councils would not be able to reduce the council tax and few councils would not be able to provide better services. That is the reality of the modern Conservative Government. They are a Government who have no vision for local government, they see no future for local government, they let local government suffer further cuts for the foreseeable future and they treat local government in the most contemptuous and most corrupt way. The Minister should answer the charge. They are a Government who are not prepared to deal with the running sore of Westminster council. A Government who are prepared to reward Westminster council are, simply, not fit to be in charge of the future of local government.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): Right hon. and hon. Members have raised important issues and I shall attempt to address those broad issues tonight. If I do not deal with a specific point, I shall write to them to cover it.
I begin by repeating the question that I put earlier to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). He said that the settlement was inadequate. If that is so, there are only two remedies: the first is to raise

the revenue support grant which is financed from central taxation and the other is to permit the council tax to rise. We need to know which remedy the Labour party favours.

Mr. Clelland: There is a third option. I explained in my speech that, because of its situation, Newcastle city council need only freeze the council tax at is current level and set its budget at that level; there would then be no need for cuts or an increase in the council tax. What does the Minister have to say about that?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is not right. The question remains the same. If the settlement is inadequate, either the council tax must rise or the revenue support grant must be increased; either public expenditure must rise or the Government will have to provide further grants. That is the case even in Newcastle. We need to know which is the Labour party's policy and by how much. Labour Members cannot say that the settlement is not good enough if they are not prepared to say what would be adequate. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will not say what would be adequate.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Curry: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall give way in a moment.
The Opposition claim that the methodology is crooked. Not one serious informed person believes that. Labour local authority leaders do not believe it, the local authority associations do not believe it and Tony Travers and Rita Hale do not believe it. They are the only two independent experts in this area.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Curry: I shall not give way, as I want to give the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras a little more evidence.
Tony Travers stated:
It is small wonder that the allocation of such large sums of money to hundreds of local authorities should lead to accusations of political bias. Yet there is no evidence of such political intervention.
The Environment Select Committee, reporting unanimously with Labour Members agreeing, stated:
We should like to place on the record our understanding that the Government's recent review of SSAs has been conducted in an open manner. DOE tested all of the options that it was asked to consider, and it has made data available in a readily usable form to interested parties.
The Audit Commission, which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras intends to wheel into action as a Cooksey's cavalry to charge against local authorities which he thinks are spending to much, said:
The determination of SSAs, being wholly formula based, is explicit and open to scrutiny. It is a more sophisticated system for equalising needs than any overseas system examined in this study and it is an improvement on its predecessor in many respects.
That is what objective people say about the methodology. Any suggestion that the methodology is rigged is sheer nonsense from start to finish. It is about time the Labour party understood that.
Let me illustrate that point. If it were rigged, it is curious that the SSA per head for Westminster is £1,278 with a total support grant of £1,023 while it is £904 for Wandsworth, £1,104 for Lambeth, £1,295 for Hackney and £1,535 for Tower Hamlets. There is nothing wrong


with that. The important point is that the funds follow the areas of greatest need. They do that above all to the inner cities, and to the inner-city areas of London, most of which are Labour controlled.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Three and a half minutes ago, my hon. Friend said that there were two options. That is not the case. The third option is that counties like Lancashire should become more efficient and shed the staff they should not have. Lancashire has one member of staff for every 17 teachers. That is manifestly excessive. That is the third option which no Labour-controlled councils choose to take.

Mr. Curry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out to me.
I wanted to explore the point a little further. If we consider the SSA per head in terms of political control, in inner London we find that the Conservatives receive £1,030 while Labour receives £1,189. In outer London, the Conservatives receive £663 and Labour receives £856, and in the shires, the Conservatives receive £87 while Labour receives £106.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Curry: If that is fiddling, I have not done a very good job, and Labour councils are the ones that will benefit. I give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I would be most grateful if the Minister would say to which hon. Member he is giving way.

Mr. Curry: With my customary generosity, I give way to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who is showing the most agitation.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Minister selectively quoted the Audit Commission's evidence to the Select Committee. Does he recall that the Audit Commission actually proposed open ministerial decisions on the allocation of funds? It was questioned by Conservative Members, who asked, "Aren't you advocating a slush fund?" The reply was, "Is that not, in effect, what happens now?" Does the Minister recall that that evidence was given by the Audit Commission to the Select Committee?

Mr. Curry: Absolutely not. It is an open system. It is discussed with local authority associations. None of it is done by mad alchemists behind closed doors in the Department of the Environment. It is discussed fully and openly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Curry: I wish to make some important points.
I make my next point with particular emphasis so that the Opposition understand it. The characteristics in the method which give support to Westminster are precisely the same characteristics which benefit Camden, Lambeth, Hackney and the other inner-city Labour authorities. If the Labour party thinks that it will get hold of a system and try to distort it to disadvantage Westminster, the first to suffer will be inner-city Labour authorities with the same characteristics.
I shall do something unusual and pay a mild tribute to Lambeth. It has at last freed itself from the scandal of Labour control and it is actually trying to make efforts to pull itself around. It recently appointed a new chief executive, Miss Rabbatts. She is paid more than the Prime Minister, but she will have to earn every penny of it.
The Liberal Democrats have been running a campaign. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was good enough to pop into the Chamber for a brief 15 seconds or so. He has been inviting all my hon. Friends to subscribe to a revolt of the west country. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman's letter arrived on the desks of all the news editors before it arrived in my hon. Friends' postbags.

Mr. Mark Robinson: I confirm that the letter did arrive on the desks of news editors before it arrived on our desks. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Mr. Don Foster: rose—

Mr. Curry: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) does not know the difference between a slogan and an argument.

Mr. Don Foster: Conservative Members have made criticisms in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The Minister and other hon. Members might wish to know that, in his capacity as leader of my party, my right hon. Friend has been involved in the developing situation in Northern Ireland, which has led to a ministerial statement, and the House has benefited from cross-party discussions on that matter.

Mr. Curry: The right hon. Member for Yeovil issued a call to arms in his letter, saying, "I hope that everybody will be there and vote on and discuss the issue." He has not done that. The Liberal Democrats wish to abolish capping—at least we know where they are coming from—and the area cost adjustment. I hope that they know what the consequences of that would he for some inner-city authorities, irrespective of what political control they are under, in terms of the impact on some of the most deprived people in the country.
Two subjects are of great importance, and I wish to refer to them briefly. On capping, there is genuine debate about the balance between central and local government funding. I acknowledge that there should he such a debate. However, as the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said, local government spends 25 per cent. of public expenditure, and any Government must exercise ultimate control over that. A 1 per cent. relaxation of capping for education authorities would add £200 million to the public expenditure totals.
Equally, I am sensitive to the arguments about local accountability and the wish of people to differentiate themselves financially in order to differentiate themselves at the ballot box. We are specifically addressing that matter, and we have put before local authorities a series of suggestions under the private finance initiative which would allow local authorities to use their capital receipts in a better way. We have invited them to establish joint companies with the private sector, and to do that within the compass of central financial controls. We are hoping also to extend that into housing. That is the way to target


and mobilise all the community's resources to tackle problems, particularly deprivation, about which we are all concerned.
Methodology is always central to debates such as this, and I should like to deal with the area cost adjustment. I have said in previous years that the system is robust. I said last year that we needed to improve the methodology in the south-east, and we have done so. I also said that I would investigate whether we could find something that gave us what we needed to know, better.
I have told local authority associations that we are exploring whether we can apply a travel-to-work test to the whole country. We are having discussions with the Department of Employment about the necessary data. We are tendering urgently for research projects which would help us to hammer out a methodology. The system would have to work, and it would have to deliver what we need.
I cannot promise—I shall not give an impression to the House which could mislead it—that the system would be as robust as the present one, but I guarantee that we will pursue it with great energy to see whether it delivers more effectively. If it does, it will become part of a methodology in which we have consistently incorporated improvements.

Mr. Olner: What the Minister has just said will give some local authorities comfort. May I press him a little further? Will he tell counties such as Warwickshire that he will increase the cap this year to allow them to get out of their difficulties? That would be well received.

Mr. Curry: I shall return to the issue of capping in a moment, but the hon. Gentleman will know that we are determined to control public expenditure. We have not reached conclusions on the capping limits for this year, and they are still provisional limits. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate the constraints on public expenditure.

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend's announcement will be well regarded in those areas which are looking for a change in the system. How long will the research take, and when will my hon. Friend be able to publish its conclusions?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will know that the sub-group in the working party with local authorities on SSAs will get into the final stages of any new system at the beginning of the autumn. Therefore, we would need that work to be sufficiently completed and subject to analysis from local authorities and ourselves by the time the House came back after the summer recess. That is the sort of time scale at which we are looking.

Mr. Michael Alison: My hon. Friend the Minister has the great advantage of being one of the relatively few hon. Members who knows that the sparsity factor refers not to the scarcity of hair on the heads of Yorkshiremen but to the superabundance of acres in Yorkshire in relation to population—not least areas such as Skipton and Ripon. Is my hon. Friend aware that North Yorkshire is very worried that the sparsity factor is not given sufficient weight in the methodology, particularly in relation to the fire service and the police? Could he possibly press for improvements in the methodology relating to sparsity?

Mr. Curry: It is difficult to judge the right weighting for sparsity. Although local authority associations,

particularly the Association of County Councils, complain about the existing weighting, they have not yet come up with a better idea. If they do, it will be examined rigorously and honestly.
This year, we shall continue work on the police SSA because we must move to a system that fully reflects the characteristics of each area rather than establishment numbers. We have additional work to do on fire SSAs, as I have always made clear. We have introduced a factor for the problems of coastal areas. [Interruption.] I am delighted to add my welcome to the enthusiasm which the right hon. Member for Yeovil has clearly evoked in the House.
We are also looking at how best to tackle the problem with regard to fire, because the pension scheme has a perverse incentive that, after 26 and a half years' service, people take early retirement through ill health and go immediately on to a full indexed pension. People recognise that that system creates problems. In the past, fire authorities may have been over-complacent—and complaisant—in conniving with that, and we must address the issue. We are trying to deal with it through the SSA methodology.
We shall look at the children's social services because we need better-quality information. The Department of Health expects to commission research to permit a reform, probably for two years from now, because it is a complex matter.
We shall also look at highways maintenance.

Mr. Richard Burden: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Curry: No, I have very little time and a lot more ground still to cover.
We are also looking at the homelessness indicator in the SSAs. That is relevant not merely to the SSAs hut to capital financing of the housing programme. It is important to have a robust methodology relevant to both those considerations.
That is not an exclusive list. Local authorities will want us to discuss other matters, which we always try to do in agreement with them.
The settlement must be seen in context. The Government must take account of the fact that local authorities spend 25 per cent. of all public expenditure. Typical budgets are: £620 million in Devon; £920 million in Hampshire; and £940 million in Lancashire. For big cities like Birmingham a typical budget is about £900 million, while the budget for Manchester is £430 million and, for Leeds, £500 million. We do not tell local authorities how to spend that money. It is the heart of the system that it is not hypothecated; they make their own decisions and allocate priorities. Nothing in our settlement compels people to penalise teachers. It is entirely up to them to decide where to allocate priorities, which is what local democracy is about and what local councillors are elected to do. The efficient councils will cope, inefficient ones will blame the Government and middling ones will probably try both. That has been the pattern in the past.
Councils can help themselves by looking at arrears in council tax collection and at whether they apply competitive tendering properly. They must put their own house in order. I acknowledge the fact that they have made progress. Many good authorities have come to grips


with working properly and work in collaboration with the private sector to make life better for their communities. We must push that process much further.
We still need to know how much a Labour Government would spend, how much the council tax would go up, what would happen when they got rid of compulsory competitive tendering and what would happen when they put Unison back in control of the councils. All we have heard is the bizarre idea that we should send in the Audit Commission, not merely to go to high-spending councils but, according to the Opposition's remarkable new philosophy—Dobson's dictum—to attack councils that set low council taxes, because that is now undesirable. I can think of nothing dafter than to send in the Audit Commission to check councils because they are spending less taxpayers' money rather than more—thou shalt not set a low council tax. That is a funny way to run local authorities.
We know who the high spenders and municipal malingerers are. They are all Labour party local authorities. It is the old, eternal list of councils that are not making an effort, and that list must be sorted out. Labour's inefficiency is a tax on deprivation, a tax on the poor and a tax on those who are in greatest need. A half-baked, uncosted, knee-jerk solution will be a disaster for ordinary people who most need the services that local government provides. I urge hon. Members to have no truck with the Labour party's policy and to support us in the Lobby tonight.

Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 257.

Division No. 61]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Browning, Mrs Angela


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Ancram, Michael
Butcher, John


Arbuthnot, James
Butler, Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carrington, Matthew


Atkins, Robert
Cash, William


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Churchill, Mr


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Clappison, James


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bates, Michael
Coe, Sebastian


Batiste, Spencer
Colvin, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Congdon, David


Bendall, Vivian
Conway, Derek


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Booth, Hartley
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boswell, Tim
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Couchman, James


Bowis, John
Cran, James


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Brandreth, Gyles
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bright Sir Graham
Day, Stephen


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Deva, Nirj Joseph





Delvin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Duncan Smith, Iain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, Sir David


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Elletson, Harold
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Legg, Barry


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward


Faber, David
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fabricant, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lidington, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacKay, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garek-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Major, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Malone, Gerald


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Gillan, Cheryl
Marland, Paul


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marlow, Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorst, Sir John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Merchant, Piers


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Sir Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jenkin, Bernard
Robathan, Andrew


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn






Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thomason, Roy


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Sackville, Tom
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Tracey, Richard


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trend, Michael


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Viggers, Peter


Shersby, Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sims, Roger
Walden, George


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Soames, Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Spencer, Sir Derek
Ward, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waterson, Nigel


Spink, Dr Robert
Watts, John


Spring, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Sproat, Iain
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Whitney, Ray


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whittingdale, John


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stephen, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stern, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Allan
Willetts, David


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sumberg, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Sweeney, Walter
Wood, Timothy


Sykes, John
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Callaghan, Jim


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Menzies (Fife N E)


Ainsworth, Robert
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Allen, Graham
Campbell-Savours, D N


Alton, David
Canavan, Denis


Anderson, Donald
Cann, Jamie


Anderson, Ms Janet
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Armstrong, Hilary
Carttiss, Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Chidgey, David


Austin-Walker, John
Chisholm, Malcolm


Banks, Tony
Church, Judith


Barnes, Harry
Clapham, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Battle, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Tom (Monklands E)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clelland, David


Beggs, Roy
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Coffey, Ann


Bell, Stuart
Cohen, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Connarty, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Berry, Roger
Corbyn, Jeremy


Betts, Clive
Corston, Jean


Blunkett, David
Cousins, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Jim (Covy, S E)


Boyes, Roland
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Dalyell, Tam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Darling, Alistair


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davidson, Ian


Brown, Nicholas (N'c'tle upon T E)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Burden, Richard
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Byers, Stephen
Denham, John


Caborn, Richard
Dixon, Don





Dobson, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Donohoe, Brian H
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dowd, Jim
Loyden, Eddie


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lynne, Ms Liz


Eagle, Ms Angela
McAllion, John


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Ian


Enright, Derek
McCrea, The Reverend William


Etherington, Bill
Macdonald, Calum


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McFall, John


Fatchett, Derek
McKelvey, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
MacShane, Denis


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Madden, Max


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Maddock, Diana


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mahon, Alice


Fraser, John
Mandelson, Peter


Fyfe, Maria
Marek, Dr John


Galloway, George
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gapes, Mike
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


George, Bruce
Martlew, Eric


Gerrard, Neil
Maxton, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Meacher, Michael


Godman, Dr Norman A
Meale, Alan


Godsiff, Roger
Michael, Alun


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gordon, Mildred
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Graham, Thomas
Milburn, Alan


Grant Bernie (Tottenham)
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grocott, Bruce
Morgan, Rhodri


Gunnell, John
Morley, Elliot


Hall, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hanson, David
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Harvey, Nick
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mullin, Chris


Henderson, Doug
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Heppell, John
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Hara, Edward


Hodge, Margaret
Olner, Bill


Hoey, Kate
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Parry, Robert


Home Robertson, John
Patchett, Terry


Hood, Jimmy
Pearson, Ian


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Pike, Peter L


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pope, Greg


Hoyle, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Bridget (Lev'm E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Hutton, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Illsley, Eric
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Radice, Giles


Jamieson, David
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Greville
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Rendel, David


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rogers, Allan


Jowell, Tessa
Rooker, Jeff


Keen, Alan
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rowlands, Ted


Knabra, Piara S
Ruddock, Joan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sedgemore, Brian


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheerman, Barry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Short, Clare


Livingstone, Ken
Simpson, Alan






Skinner, Dennis
Tipping, Paddy


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Snape, Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Spearing, Nigel
Wareing, Robert N


Spellar, John
Watson, Mike


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Stevenson, George
Wilson, Brian



Wise, Audrey


Stott, Roger
Worthington, Tony


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wright, Dr Tony


Straw, Jack
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Joe Benton and


Timms, Stephen
Mr. Dennis Turner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 161), which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.

It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions necessary to dispose of the other motions relating to local government finance, pursuant to order [27 January].

Resolved,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 12) (House of Commons Paper No. 162), which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 163), which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Orders of the Day — SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Dr. Robert Spink: I beg leave to present a petition to the House, signed by more than 200 of my constituents, most of whom live in close proximity of Woodside park.
The petition was organised by Mr. Poole, an indefatigable campaigner on behalf of the park. The petitioners seek to improve the park to a reasonable standard.
The petition states:
That the condition and maintenance and policing of Woodside Park have suffered from neglect for a number of years and that we, the undersigned, call on the Department of Environment to bring pressure on Castle Point Borough Council to bring the Park to a satisfactory standard and to prevent dumping in the Park and to cease the dumping of grave spoil in the Park, in order that residents and all users of the Park can enjoy its facilities, and that the Police should give proper coverage to the Park and surrounding areas, particularly at night, in order to prevent and discourage young people from causing a nuisance or being exposed to criminal activities and delays.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do urge the Right Honourable John Gummer, M.P., Secretary of State of the Environment to intervene to ensure that Castle Point Borough Council take the necessary action.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
To lie upon the Table.

Sir Trevor Skeet: For many years, Bedford has required a satisfactory infrastructure, and for more than 40 years we have had no bypass. Therefore, my constituents have come together and signed a petition, which has 16,345 signatures.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the undersigned people of Bedford in the County of Bedfordshire and elsewhere sheweth that: In order to boost Bedford's employment prospects, benefit the town centre environment, improve road safety and enhance the quality of life for those who live and work in Bedford, new and improved roads linking the Al and MI, to the south of Bedford, and the Western Bypass are needed urgently.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Secretary of State for Transport, in conjunction with the County Council of the said County of Bedfordshire, to give Priority One status to the Great Barford Bypass, A42I improvements, Norse Road Link, and the Bedford Western Bypass (including the A6-A428 link), to include the schemes in an immediate roads programme and to implement them forthwith.
And your petitioners, as duty bound, will ever pray etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Scottish Homes (Housing Stock)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I thank Madam Speaker for allowing me this Adjournment debate, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being here tonight to chair it. I also thank my hon. Friends who are present to give me moral support, and the Minister, who kindly allowed me to give some of the questions in advance so that we would have a full and constructive debate tonight.
I am deeply concerned about the behaviour of Scottish Homes, and particularly that of Mr. Peter McKinlay, its chief executive. I support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who put out a press release on behalf of all the Scottish Labour Members of Parliament, stating that Mr. McKinlay and the rest of the board should be sacked. As a lifelong trade unionist, I never thought that I would see the day when I would want anyone to be sacked, but Mr. McKinlay is an exception to the rule.
The problem is that Scottish Homes decided to follow the Government's rules and unload its property, thus ceasing to be a landlord. Ironically, although Scottish Homes has many other functions, it has been an exceptionally good landlord. It seems to be a case of "if it works, fix it", and I think that Scottish Homes is doing a great disservice to Scottish tenants. It was not the present board but its many predecessors that made Scottish Homes a good landlord, helped by the co-operation and hard work of many tenants' associations throughout Scotland.
Scottish Homes also has a staff worry. I understand the position, but Mr. McKinlay has not asked but ordered his staff to do what he wishes. In October 1992, he announced that they should find tenants who were prepared to enter into joint ventures and form housing associations.
In my area, officers of Scottish Homes recently formed a housing association, along with certain tenants. The association is called Gemini, and it has bitten off a big piece of housing stock to chew. It intends to acquire properties from Westercommon and Maryhill through my constituency, across the east end of Glasgow, to Rutherglen and Cambuslang. As the Minister will know, the Government recently introduced legislation to change local government in Scotland, which means that the housing association will be trying to acquire property in two separate local authorities. Anyone who knows anything about community-based housing associations will be aware that it is vital for the community to be contained within a single authority, because it will depend a good deal on that authority.
My area contains the Carron, Balornock, East Balornock, Robroyston and Garngad schemes—a total of 1,373 houses, almost half the number of Scottish Homes houses that are to be disposed of. Even if we assume a modest transfer price of £5,000 per house—the houses are worth more than that, but they are being sold with sitting tenants—given that there are 2,286 Scottish Homes properties in Glasgow, Gemini will be required to borrow at least £11.43 million on behalf of Scottish Homes tenants. However, none of the newsletters that have been

issued specify the amount that will have to be borrowed; only the small print mentions the requirement to borrow from the private sector.
That worries me. Some 16 Labour Members of Parliament attended a meeting in the Copthorne hotel during the summer recess. At that meeting Mr. McKinlay stated that he would peg rent rises to between 1 and 2 per cent. above inflation and added that after five years there would be no help from the Government or from Scottish Homes.
Not long ago, the interest rate was 15 per cent. If that happens again and my constituents and those of other hon. Members borrow about £11 million, and if the only way to get revenue to pay the building society or other lending authority is from rents, it is inevitable that after the five years tenants will have to pay the full interest charges and maintenance costs. Nothing is being said about that in the propaganda that is being put out by Gemini.
The Minister knows that some officers in Scottish Homes are clearly involved with Gemini. That creates a serious conflict of interest. The acting director of Gemini is Mr. Simpson, who is a senior official in Scottish Homes in Glasgow.
That is not all, because the Springburn Possilpark housing association, a local body which has been in my area for 20 years and has a good track record, does not want all the 2,000 plus houses that Gemini is seeking. However, it has been invited by Scottish Homes to make a bid for those houses in my constituency. Scottish Homes is being devious in extending that invitation to Springburn Possilpark housing association. It is merely pulling in the local association for window dressing. It must be that, because the Minister knows that when a joint venture or what Scottish Homes calls a new landlord, such as Gemini, makes a bid anywhere in Scotland against a local community-based housing association, lo and behold, the staff organisation always wins.
Mr. McKinlay and the apology for a chairman, Sir James Mellon, should come clean and say that Springburn Possilpark does not have a chance. A housing association that has served the community and Scottish Homes so well is being unfairly treated.
I spoke about banks and lending institutions being involved. It is stated in Gemini's business proposal document that multi-storey flats will cause problems when it comes to borrowing money to buy them. I have said in the House before that the Carron scheme in my constituency consists mainly of multi-storey dwellings. They are excellent and anyone would be proud to live in them. They are a credit to the tenants. If banks are already saying at this early stage that they may not be able to lend money to buy those dwellings, the Minister must say what will happen to my tenants. It would be extremely unfair to have ballots when people do not know their future in buildings that have been there for the best part of 30 years. Many tenants have been in them all that time.
It is proposed that ballot papers should go out. It should be made clear on ballot papers that tenants are taking on a heavy commitment in borrowing all that money. The Minister should instruct Scottish Homes to make it clear on the ballot paper that people are entitled to remain with Scottish Homes. All the propaganda that is coming from Gemini and the other associations that are on the


bandwagon gives the impression that there is no room at the inn to remain with Scottish Homes. That information must be put on the ballot paper.
The Minister has a responsibility to tell tenants that they have security of tenure. If the ballot is successful, even people who vote against or do not turn up and abstain will be required to sign up for a new tenancy agreement, which will make them assured tenants. They may have the right to buy—propaganda on that has been put out—but the fact that assured tenants are denied the right to go to a rent officer is hidden. Rents will no longer have the protection of a rent officer. The Minister knows that secure tenants in housing associations can go to a rent officer.
Mr. McKinlay told us at the meeting in the Copthorne—my hon. Friends will correct me if I am wrong—that, if the tenants decided to stay with Scottish Homes, he would introduce a private factor in relation to the property. That is unfair on those people, many of whom have been loyal tenants and have paid rent for 30 and sometimes 40 years. If they exercise a democratic right to remain with Scottish Homes, no official should take it upon himself to say that he will introduce a private factor. If people decide to remain with Scottish Homes, a team of officials should be able to look after their needs, instead of a private landlord being brought in.
I must give time for the Minister to reply. I have been involved with housing for 22 years, ever since I was a councillor in Balornock. Everyone, myself included, had a high regard for Scottish Homes as a landlord. Its houses have always been in high demand, whether they are back-and-front-door properties, multi-storey flats or tenements. The board is destroying something that has been built up over many years. I hope and pray only for the day when we have a Labour Government who will ensure that those tenants are given the rights for which they have fought for so long.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) on securing this debate and on the spirited way in which he has put his points. I shall seek to answer as many of his questions as possible. I shall study the record tomorrow and, if I miss any of his points, I shall reply to him later.
The Scottish Office has every confidence in the Scottish Homes board and the chief executive. I hope that tonight I can convince the hon. Member for Springburn about the background and describe the transfer process. In particular, I want to emphasise that the Scottish Office's policy is centred on maintaining tenants' interests, which are of paramount importance. We have declared our intention of ensuring that these interests are fully protected.
The hon. Member for Springburn raised a number of specific issues which I would like to address at the outset.
On the question of Scottish Homes making options known to tenants—particularly the option of remaining with Scottish Homes—I am aware of information leaflets which are given to all tenants at various stages in the

transfer process which make it perfectly clear that if the majority of tenants vote against a transfer, they will remain with Scottish Homes.
The hon. Gentleman has also expressed concern about staff involvement, particularly regarding Gemini housing association, and he has recently asked a number of parliamentary questions covering operational matters of this sort. Those are, quite rightly, a matter for Scottish Homes and I have replied to the hon. Gentleman saying that I have asked the chairman to write to him on those issues.
On the specific point of conflict of interest and continuity of employment, Scottish Homes operates a code of conduct designed to eliminate such conflicts. It is expected that under existing employment legislation Scottish Homes staff would be offered continuity of employment regardless of who may be the successful bidder.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Will the Minister bear it in mind that every organisation of this nature where the staff has been involved has always won the tender? That seems to be more than a coincidence.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am just coming to that point.
To avoid any conflict of interest, staff are required to state clearly to interested parties when they are acting on behalf of an organisation involved in developing proposals of Scottish Homes and not as representatives of Scottish Homes. In some circumstances, secondment of staff will be considered.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned management bids. It has been brought to my attention that, of the 18 proposals for transfer that have been approved by the Secretary of State, only one has involved a management bid. Scottish Homes' procedures ensure that all bids are treated objectively and even-handedly. The important point is that tenants should be aware of all options open to them and, ultimately, it is and will be for tenants to choose.
On the question of the initial disposal of Scottish Homes stock and subsequent resale—which would require the consent of Scottish Homes—the presumption is that all costs will be met by private finance.
With regard to rental policies, it is expected that tenants will transfer at their existing rent and will be fully aware of the rental regime proposed by the alternative landlord. This will be covered by tenancy agreements. The tenants will be aware of the terms of those agreements before the ballot. Scottish Homes will ensure through contractual arrangements that rental increases cannot be in excess of proposals put to tenants without its consent. Individual subsidies are, of course, available to tenants through housing benefit, of which £800 million is paid in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned multi-storey flats. Scottish Homes is looking to mix multi-storeys with other traditional stock to make the housing package more attractive to lenders.
I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the responsibility that tenants face when forming new organisations to take on a landlord role. However, Scottish Homes provides financial support to tenants to undertake training in housing management which is provided by staff from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations.
I understand the concerns that have been expressed by the hon. Gentleman and I should emphasise that the final decision on any transfer of stock is, under the present arrangements, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I understand that, at present, Scottish Homes has received some outline proposals from interested parties regarding properties in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but discussions and consultation are at an early stage and no decisions have been taken.
I re-emphasise to the House the fact that the promotion of greater housing choice is one of the major aims of the Government's housing policy. There are a number of ways in which we are seeking to achieve this. The first is our encouragement of further home ownership, but we recognise that it is not necessarily the right option for everyone and that there is clearly a continuing and important role for the social rented sector. It is, therefore, important that people who choose to rent should be offered the choice to do so.
We are, therefore, implementing policies to encourage diversification of tenure and to make certain that tenants have a wider choice of landlords outwith the public sector from whom to rent in the future. Consistent with the policy of increasing choice for tenants, Scottish Homes has been working towards shedding its landlord role. Over the past few years, it has worked up a large-scale voluntary transfer policy and a forward programme under which it expects to dispose of the majority of its stock within the next five years.
It was expected that different solutions might emerge in different areas which would reflect the wishes of tenants—solutions which would allow them to benefit from improved services and better housing conditions and have greater say and control in relation to their housing stock. It was made clear that changes of this kind would occur only at a pace in line with tenants' wishes.
I mentioned a moment ago that tenants' interests were paramount when considering transfer of stock. That was emphasised in the guidance which my right hon. Friend issued to Scottish Homes in 1989 and on which Scottish Homes' subsequent procedures have been based. The guidance concentrated on three main areas—fair and open competition between potential purchasers; protection of tenants' interests; and value for money.
The Scottish Office would generally regard competition as preferable in most circumstances and would expect that to be the case for Scottish Homes transfers. It is only in this way that tenants will have full access to the proposals of all the alternative landlords looking to take over stock. These might include initiatives from staff or tenants, or a combination of both, or from a quite separate body such as a housing association co-op or housing trust.
Within this framework of general principles it is, quite properly, a matter for Scottish Homes as owner of the stock to establish appropriate arrangements to govern its transfer. For this purpose, it has published procedures that promote substantial safeguards for tenants and which are designed to provide equitable treatment for all parties interested in acquiring its houses. These procedures are subject to continual review and account is taken of the experience gained and lessons learnt from the substantial number of transfers that have successfully taken place since 1991.
One aspect that I must mention is how the procedures involve the establishment of local stock strategies. These are prepared in consultation with tenants and interested parties at local level in all areas where Scottish Homes holds housing stock. All of Scottish Homes' housing stock is currently covered by such strategies which provide a clear statement about what Scottish Homes wants to happen with its stock. These strategies define local aims and objectives for stock in specific areas and can be used as a framework to allow for the appraisal of outline proposals.
Within the local stock strategy, further breakdown of areas varies according to local circumstances and may reflect initiatives already under way or opportunities identified by tenants and areas where there may be an interest in transfer. Each local strategy was prepared in liaison with Scottish Homes' local development and housing management staff and involved consultation with tenants' representatives and potential alternative landlords and liaison with local authority housing departments.
Of course, one of the main benefits of allowing stock to transfer to a landlord outwith the public sector, such as a housing association, is that it involves the use of private capital. Promoting the use of private finance will ensure that public funds go much further.
On the specific point of transfer to local authorities, if it were to happen, the funds that the local authorities borrowed to finance the purchase of the houses would count as public expenditure and, unless total public expenditure were to rise, it would inevitably mean reducing public expenditure elsewhere. That could mean fewer resources available to improve other local authority housing. In short, by enabling people to transfer to new landlords such as housing associations, it is possible to lever in private finance and, in so doing, get more for the public resources available. That is an important point. I should mention that to date Scottish Homes has attracted more than £40 million of private finance. If that sum had come not from the private sector but from the public sector other important proposals would have been awarded lower priority.
There are, of course, other benefits to private finance. Involving banks and building societies introduces private sector skills and disciplines to the transfer process, alongside the best traditions of the public sector. That can introduce new approaches and perspectives and boost effectiveness. They can help ensure that the new landlord starts off on a sound and sensible footing, with a properly thought-out business plan, dealing with key issues such as rent levels and repairs provision. We can be pretty sure that a financial institution will lend money only to good landlords. That, of course, is good news for the tenants who share a common interest, with the private lenders, in wanting a landlord who is efficient and effective.
There have been suggestions that the arrangement of only one alternative is too restrictive. I do not believe that to be the case. It should be recognised that Scottish Homes will be consulting tenants throughout the transfer process and tenants will have access to free, independent advice to ensure that they are fully aware of all the options, including the proposals of all alternative landlords open to them. In that way, tenants are able to inform and influence the decision-making process under which Scottish Homes offers an alternative for the ballot paper. It is only when that whole process has been completed and tenants are in a position to take a


well-balanced view and make informed decisions on the question of the future landlord that they will be balloted on a transfer proposal.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have much to say in reply to the hon. Member for Springburn.
If at the end of the day the majority of tenants wish to stay with the public sector, they will have the opportunity of doing so by voting to remain with Scottish Homes. If the majority vote to transfer, all tenants should transfer. It would not allow for practical management of the stock if the minority vote against transfer were allowed to remain with Scottish Homes. I mention to the hon. Member for Springburn that out of 19 ballots, involving more than 12,000 tenants, a majority of 61.5 per cent. were in favour of transferring. So a decisive majority has been in favour of transfers.
I have already answered the point about staff. It is to be expected that there will be many instances when existing staff will wish to promote initiatives, in many cases in conjunction with tenants. Many of Scottish Homes' staff will have been part of the housing management structure of

the Scottish Special Housing Association and Scottish Homes. It is natural that they will wish to promote their employment opportunities and it would certainly be unfortunate if their expertise were lost.
Even in cases where tenants take the lead themselves, in many cases they welcome the active participation of Scottish Homes' staff, which is largely on a voluntary basis. There is clear evidence that this can be highly successful as in the case of WESLO Housing management in West Lothian. That is an independent organisation which incorporates—

Mr. John McAllion: What about Waverley?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That case was at the very beginning of the whole process. There has been improvement in procedures since that time. What is significant about Waverley is that the interests of tenants were treated as paramount and the accusation was not that tenants had been exploited, but that they had had too good a deal—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.